The Jalopy Journal
Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by ekimneirbo, May 9, 2020.
That thing is perfect.
Not that makes any difference about location of the beginnings, families with the same interests shared what the did.
I can say at 75 and driving since 16 in SoCal I have never had a car that was deliberately lower in the rear than the front. I’ve heated and cut coils on a lot of our cars to give the a nice forward rake because it’s the style I like.
I liked/admired the Pachuco cars of the 50’s and still do. (That word is not racist and widely used in the 50-60’s, look it up)
Lowriders by definition are at the extreme end of the bell curve and should be at the extreme fringe of this discussion. They don't recognize any such term as "too low". For them, kissing dirt is their whole point and target look.
So, returning halfway back to our regularly scheduled program........ a few years ago I spotted a very tasteful lowrider for sale on fleabay and I gave it some serious thought to buy it and "save it" by putting regular size wheels/tires and suspension on it.
It was designed to be driven low. Check out the 2019 Custom Car Revival highlight video if you don't believe it.
Not quite right!
That is a nice looking 56 Chevy hardtop. The stance looks very cool, but in So Cal, he/she would get pulled over for a ticket. Why? The under door side pipes, whether connected or not, is lower than the lowest part of the rims. Also, it looks good in the rear section, but the dual side exhaust pipes also are at or lower than the bottom of the rim. One flat tire or blow out would cause extreme hazards for the occupant.
Occupant(s) would also lower that Chevy hardtop to well beyond safe driving limits. The looks were very popular back in the late 50s and early 60s. But, once warned and given a ticket, it is on the books and a second time stop with the same ticket (as the CHP told us teenagers) is a mandatory tow away.
So, in modern times, air ride or hydraulics do have their simplicity and legal driving action in mind. Here is a good sample of a So Cal 1957 Chevy with the Cal Rake stance, built or set for good driving and even with a few passengers, still CHP legal. A cool So Cal Chevy in action on perhaps a late lunch hour snack break, from the nearest, hot rod oriented, factory/warehouse, Hilborn Injection Company, just back a few blocks.
Who cares who started the low to the ground look, we saw the early hydraulics in action and were told that way, no one can steal the custom car if pancaked to the ground. A great way to “lock in place” these days.
It’s a Watson painted ride. One of my favorites.
As far as CHP issues the owner or Mr Watson would know.
Here are some more 56s Watson worked on. Several are very low, some look like your example.
If a car is too low, you are too old.
My dad used to say that...
Also... fellas... remember, if you can disagree with someone and not hate them. I know that's hard to realize in this day and age, but it's actually true!
I drove my truck all over the country and it was low without air bags but you learn where you can go and where you can’t
I like them low as long as they’re built to be driven low Stance is one of the most important parts of the overall look of a vehicle. I’m for low but that’s just my opinion
Hell no they can't be too low
Many of the new builds look too low to look 100% traditional.
@anthony myrick does anyone know what happened to the car or Harvey Buthoff?
Don’t know. Great question
Customs seem to either fade away or continue changing with styles.
I hate it when people say that!
Hey... awesome idea.
You take the high road
And I'll take the low road...
YOU take the low road, and I'LL take the high road.
Some cars might be an exception. I'm not sure if this awesome creation would be as awesome at a higher altitude. Somebody might want to photoshop it to see what it might look like? Put slicks on it while you're at it LOL.
Well , I’m going to settle this once and for all....yes and no! LOL
Some cars beg to be low! 49 Merc, for instance. Some cars / trucks just look goofy being low. My preference is a tad lower in front, higher in back. And high enough all way around to drive city streets with out banging something!
Here is something to consider about "too low"..........
1: Is it physically too low to be operated safely on the road? Does it routinely scrape and bang as opposed that "once in a great while " you have to take some kind of evasive action? Did lowering compromise steering?
2: Is it (or will it) be aesthetically too low and actually look worse than it does at its ride height?
Notice I haven't said that radically lowered cars are unacceptable, only that there should be a point where any additional lowering has a detrimental result either physically or aesthetically......or both.
Lets look at a couple of the photos submitted above. The first, summitted by John Edge . I think the grass may make it look a little closed to the ground than pavement would have. Its a great looking truck and very similar to one I'm building. Aesthetically it looks great. Depending on whether I'm correct about the grass, my personal choice would be the same stance but maybe an inch higher for driveability.
Also, my personal opinion.........any lower would look wrong and add nothing to either aesthetics or driveability.
In the second picture by RickyBop, I think this is a really well done and well executed car. I assume it sat that low as built. I have to wonder if it is really driveable being that low. I also think that lowering further.......even with hydraulics for display........would be too far (in my opinion). I just think aesthetically this car looks "right" at this height. So (my opinion) dropping it so the frame lays on the ground for display is "too far" astetically.
Earlier, Anthony mentioned going to a Rat Rod Run where many of the cars were trailered in because they were basically undriveable. So they met the "aestetic" (if you can call Rat Rods aesthetic)goals they wanted, but at the cost of driveability. I think I am saying the same thing about a car that is simply displayed in a manner thats undriveable.
One could argue that many "show cars" are displayed in undriveable condition, and they would be correct......but to me, the caveat there is that the car often isn't built to be driven, so they have more leeway.
I just feel that a car that is built to be driven should be built so it can be driven and should be displayed as driven. Then I get to view the car in its natural state. I think the persona (good or bad)of a vehicle is lost when its displayed unnaturally. The low riders are welcome to display their vehicles in unnatural conditions like one wheel hanging in the air, because that "is natural" for that kind of build. Now my opinion is not meant to insult anyone, just to explain how I view the whole idea of incorporating a "stance" into the vehicle at birth, and making it both awesome and driveable at the same time.
There are “ trends” in the car culture. Some come, some go, some hang around, like this 80 some year “ trend” lol. But, to each it’s own!
I was at a car event last Summer and saw a 50s Ford Pick up actually setting on the ground! The running boards were on the pavement! When I saw this..... it kinda pissed me off! Don’t really know why..... but it did! It was just a feeling that I had! Then I realized that the owner was trying to be different, doing his thing and going for an effect. Well...... he did it! He got a reaction out of me! I walked a ways and had to smile! I think the guy with the Pickup on the ground won! Lol
Bottom line, it’s yours build like YOU want!
Both of those examples are undrivable as they sit. What good is the best looking car if you can't enjoy it on the road? But the title of the thread is about looks, not about driveability. Do they look too low? No. Are they too low? Yes. Unless your goal is to just park the car somewhere and look at it, then I guess they're fine.
I think ANY car with any part of the front wheel in the wheel well looks slammed and terrible!
That is just so wrong on so many levels. HRP
You can say that again, Danny.
But hey... he can change his rear tires without pulling the skirts.
I agree that that’s wrong...... but when those guys start jacking those cars up and down at odd angles and driving around a corner leaning the wrong way...... I can’t help myself..... I start laughing! It’s funny as shit! Not for me...... but still funny!
You are right, I did say "Look too low". In my mind I juxtaposed that a vehicle "looks too low" because subconsciously my mind is saying to me............"That won't work, thats not driveable"
In the explanation which followed the title I mentioned undriveable and usable. So I didn't do a very good job explaining myself.
I do think your comment "What good is the best looking car if you can't enjoy it on the road? " is exactly right. My feeling is simply that the persona a car has while in motion is the same persona it should display at rest......unless hard acceleration is occuring.
I've always felt that when you modify a vehicle, the modification should serve some useful purpose. It may just be an aesthetic purpose as well as handling,comfort,safety,or performance. Raising and lowering a car can also be done in a manner that serves a purpose. I just never " got it" when it comes to radical hydraulic controls, just like I never "got it" when people thought it was cool to wear their hat backwards or their underwear hanging out or smoke their tires till they wore out or blew out. I just don't "get it". And I'm glad I don't get it..........
I used to have the Plymouth pretty low.
That's dropped torsion bars - no bags. The Chrysler isn't quite that low.
No !, in general looks good IMO.
I like the look of this car, is there more info some were? Thanks. Bob
Separate names with a comma.