Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical "T" For Two

Discussion in 'Traditional Hot Rods' started by Ryan, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. Ryan
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 1995
    Posts:
    14,824
    Location:
    Austin, TX

    Ryan
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Staff Member

  2. Ryan
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 1995
    Posts:
    14,824
    Location:
    Austin, TX

    Ryan
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Staff Member

    I'll be damned... I hadn't put one and two together this morning. The car still looks great.
  3. casper
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    975
    Location:
    Fresno, Ca.

    casper Member

    Awesome car !! As a resident of Fresno, I am always looking for an old survivor like this. A lot of nice cars were built in the central California area.
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  4. Yep she sure does! Personally I favour the Wally Olson version as it has that purposeful appearance like if Frank Kurtis had of built a Track T. No nonsense all out racer with style and class.
  5. Ryan
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 1995
    Posts:
    14,824
    Location:
    Austin, TX

    Ryan
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Staff Member

    I had no idea that was the same car. I actually have the earlier version pinned on my bulletin board in the office. Hell, I like the earlier version the best.
  6. Rolleiflex
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Posts:
    583
    Location:
    Austin, Texas

    Rolleiflex Member

    That thing is a beauty! I'd take either version, but I agree the first version is a much cleaner and more purposeful looking car.

    The stance is just awesome!
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  7. JeffreyJames
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Posts:
    16,372
    Location:
    SUGAR CITY

    JeffreyJames Member

    Hot damn I love me both versions!!!! I love how racy the earlier version was and how kitchy the second was. Can we just talk about how awesome hood sides with no top is? I thought that was just something that was whipped up in Weez's mind.

    Ryan, bite your tongue on the headlight placement. High and mighty rules!!!!
  8. dana barlow
    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Posts:
    1,878
    Location:
    Miami Fla.

    dana barlow Member

    I like both ways on that "T":cool:,but lean to the first build style of most rods,
    The fenders I also had to deal with back in the day with my own rod,cop's would hate or love a hot rod,and so depening on what cop was running my part of town,I'd have to put the fenders on or not,I hated the fender look,but it was one of things we had to play with in Miami fl. in the late 50's to the 60's.
    Photo in my album on this site:D
    As for head lites,now days most look pertty weird to me on rods,having done this stuff in the 50/60 time,we did a lot of running around town at nite and sealbeams was the only way to see any good,plus the higher they were mounted the better,ya some looks came into play=we tryed to get small sealbeams [7in.]that were nicely shaped,but big old style lights low down were not on any rods then,nor would they of worked for crap=we did not have high power bulbs.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  9. GARY?
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Posts:
    1,626
    Location:
    Portland, OR

    GARY? Member

    "Fordster" Never heard that one before.
    One of the best.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  10. goetzcr
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Posts:
    116
    Location:
    Springfield, VA

    goetzcr Member

    First off, sorry about the long post, but I've been wrestling with a design predicament for some time, and this particular post raises some questions.
    I need some guidance here from someone more knowledgable than me. (That's probably most of you):eek:

    I am formulating my upcoming project (29 A roadster) and have been trying to determine the proper period for the car. I plan to run a Nailhead because I dig the looks and the torque. The year of the engine pushes me up to the late 50's at the absolute earliest. I generally like the late 50's/early 60's aesthetic as long as it doesn't go to far into the wild show-car look. But looking at these photos I'm amazed at how drasticly this particular car changed in under 4 years. Just from these few pictures I see the following changes: carbeuration setup, white walls, fenders, hairpins, headlights, windshield, and exhaust. Did the design trends really change that fast in those 4 years?

    I've got to say I like the earlier version more. It looks damn tough. I'm looking to combine a early 50's aesthetic (or at least a no-nonsense one)with my power plant of choice. Is there a way to gracefully blend what appears to be a mish-mash of periods. What IS the correct period for a Nailhead in a model A? If the correct period is the 60's, are there any good examples of no-nonsense (but streetable) model A's from the 60s? Most of what I see are show cars from that period. I want look of the car to be coherant.

    Thanks in advance for any guidance.
    Cory
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  11. -Brent-
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    Salt Lake City

    -Brent- Member

    I like the earlier version best, too. The fenders on the restored version bug me. The cycle fenders on the '58 version look rounded unlike the trailer looking ones on the update.

    However, overall, a timeless (and awesome) custom hot rod.
  12. Don's Hot Rods
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Posts:
    7,241
    Location:
    florida

    Don's Hot Rods Member

  13. need louvers ?
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    11,595
    Location:
    phoenix, az

    need louvers ?
    ALLIANCE MEMBER


    Thank you Jimmy B!

    I had hoped someone would post that article of this car. It was sooooooo much cooler in Wally Olsen's original build than what happened to it later down the line. I just could never stomach something so pure hot rod being turned into something "showy".
    I actually spent a good portion of the nineties searching for this car, 'cause I had heard rumors through a well connected friend that it still survived. Didn't get real lead on it until it was way too late. That's okay, being the perpetual broke dick, I probably could have never afforded it anyway.
    The first version of this car is on my short list of cars that I would very much like to at least loosely clone. I'd even put up with a flathead for this one!
  14. Gator
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    White House TN

    Gator Member

    Perfect!

    [​IMG]
  15. need louvers ?
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    11,595
    Location:
    phoenix, az

    need louvers ?
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Hey Cory,

    I hear what you are saying. I'm kinda in the same boat with my roadster pickup project right now. I'm certaimly no expert at this deal as far as styling, but I know what cues work for what eras. I prefer to look at my little trucklet as "evolutionary" more than a specific period in time. It started out Looking very late forties with the lack of fenders on an "A" frame, so that is what the vast majority of the details of the truck will follow. I HATE flatheads (sorry, I have had them and although they are beautiful, they are low touque, hard to cool 'round these parts and I'm just flat over them!) So a 283 chev in mid fifties garb (steel Chevrolet valve covers, steel air cleaner, canister filter, etc.) will do for power. I just sold my soul to a good buddy of mine for a set of no hole 16" Halibrands, so that stays congruent to a car built after the war but slightly updated as the owner had more money to throw at it. I'll peg it's date somewhere in the mid to late fifties, nothing newer than say '57 or so. By picking that date and studying what was what then, I have a date... Make any sense?

    As far as the subject car goes, hell yes there were allot of changes in what was up between the original build and the re-build. That's why so much more "stuff" was hung on the car. The other thing with this particular car was that there was some indication that Wally never really built the car to be a truly streetable, driver kinda car. Notice in the first form it didn't have a windshield. The flatty that was in it was something outrageous like 300 inches and the radiator tiny. I haven't read or re-read the original article in years (probably should have done that before i wrote this long answer!) but if I'm not mistaken it mentions something about building this car with his sons "to keep them out of pool halls". The 1958 rebuild might have been based in the subsequent owners desire to make the car more streetable, then taken over board. Hence the windshield and fenders...
  16. Muttley
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Posts:
    16,270
    Location:
    Fresno, Cal.

    Muttley Member

    Neat car, the fenders need to go though.
  17. need louvers ?
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    11,595
    Location:
    phoenix, az

    need louvers ?
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Sorry to disagree, But PERFECT!!!

    Attached Files:

  18. Jeem
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Posts:
    5,872
    Location:
    ....in the Valley of the SUN.....

    Jeem Alliance Vendor

    The blackwall, fenderless (earlier) version is AWESOME! Bad ASS'd...

    Funny, but I don't much care at all for the parade version with the whitewalls and cycle fenders.
  19. cactus1
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    6,147
    Location:
    Beautiful Kansas City! (And beyond!!)

    cactus1
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Such a great little car! I may have missed it but what would the 19" rears on the first version have come off of?
  20. a boner
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Posts:
    2,205
    Location:
    Waukesha, Wisconsin

    a boner Member

    If I built a loosely based clone of this hot rod, it would be the early (race car) version, and not the later (show rod) version. The only changes I would make would be a slightly laid back lower windshield, and an early corvette V-8.

    Wish Coker made rear tires like these, instead of their later style dirt track tires.
  21. need louvers ?
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    11,595
    Location:
    phoenix, az

    need louvers ?
    ALLIANCE MEMBER


    They are sixteens on the back with dirt track tires...
  22. need louvers ?
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    11,595
    Location:
    phoenix, az

    need louvers ?
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    They do! 8.20 X 16 dirts.
  23. flamingokid
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Posts:
    1,423
    Location:
    Olathe,Kansas

    flamingokid Member

    I've always liked the T,loved the A.This car is making it a tougher choice,to say the least.
  24. Jive-Bomber
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Posts:
    2,552
    Location:
    Moraga, Ca

    Jive-Bomber
    MODERATOR

    That car is the definition of "SWEET T"!!!!!
  25. cactus1
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    6,147
    Location:
    Beautiful Kansas City! (And beyond!!)

    cactus1
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    The article says 8.20-19"? Typo maybe?
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  26. need louvers ?
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    11,595
    Location:
    phoenix, az

    need louvers ?
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Pretty sure it is.
  27. Rickybop
    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,580
    Location:
    Michigan

    Rickybop Member

    That's a sweet T. I'm one of the few that actually like cycle-style fenders...esp if they're made with Ford spare tire rings. And even though those aren't...the fact that they've been chromed intrigues me...never saw that treatment before. I like it.
  28. dana barlow
    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Posts:
    1,878
    Location:
    Miami Fla.

    dana barlow Member

    Some spair tire covers/rings were made of stainless steel,I use those on my next rod in I built in 67 [still took them off when I could],but very little was chromed at a shop,found chrome parts or made SS,alum or brass and some times copper, polished up any thing that we could.
    Bolts were nearly always SS polished if right out front. Some show cars were shop chrome,but my stuff and most of the guys I knew did it like I did,what you could find to look good,and yes I was part of custom & rod shows in the 50's 60's

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2013 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.