Art & Inspiration Just fine as they came

Highlander, as you probably know, the first three cars on your list were all designed by Bill Mitchell, who became GM VP of Styling after Harley Earl retired. Mitchel was famous for leading the way toward a more sharp-edged look after Earl's more round & chrome era.

He really had "the eye".

 

In my opinion these don't need much help. good paint ( even original) and a nice set of wheels dropped or not the '61 Olds Starfire.

 

'50 Olds for me, only I'd want a fastback. Then, maybe a '53 Hudson Hornet club coupe (with "Twin-H power), and last, a '57 DeSoto Adventurer, (since it's dream time). If you have a '50's Hudson, you don't need a chopped Merc!

 

Just re-read this entire thread and have to agree with Highlander that 50 Olds Coupe looks bad ass just the way it came from the factory. I wouldn't touch a thing.

gary

 

I like classic cars that appear mostly stock but have mechanical upgrades (such as brakes, steering, suspension, engine performance mods) -- mostly things that are not readily visible. Many of these cars look awesome in their factory original appearance, however lowering is always a nice touch, and many pre-1955 cars look really cool with a mild chop.

 

For me, stock looks - trim, paint and body-wise are great but most stockers need to be dunked down, closer to the ground, preferably with a bit rake to really say "hot rod".

Steve

 

I always thought the '61 Olds was in bad need of '61 Cadillac tail fins. To me they look like they were supposed to have them, but at the last minute someone shaved them off.

Oh, and for the record, that's an 88, not a Starfire. They didn't make Starfire hardtops in '61, only convertibles. Also, Starfires have the large brushed trim running in the side cove.

 

Lowering the stance gets mentioned often in the replies, and I don't think that's removing the car's attributes in any way. Of course it improves them some, also done in moderation. The sales depts followed that kind of "creed" if you will. Look at several promo pictures in the later years, especially the artist conceptions. Lower by far, often dark tinted windows (they still do that today, take a look at the next TV commercial for a car). I recall the (feloniously O/T) GM 'F' body promo shots. The cars were weighted down in order to attain a certain look. A quick google image search for factory pics would net many examples. At the end of it all, lowered some doesn't count to me. Still the real thing, like this one:

 

`40 Ford woodie...perfect. O.K drop the front a few inches...........

 

What I like about them is the lack of fins, if I had been a custom guy back then and they had fins that may have been something that I shaved off.

I was not aware that the Starfire only came in a rag top in '61, thanks for the info.

For clarity of the point that @WordSmith is making here is a '61 Starfire.

 

My take on all of this is similar.
While stock is great for a lot of vehicles there are those that look great mildly modified or tastefully customized.
The key to that is tastefully done.
A lot of customs just look butchered.
I have always maintained that some people who mess with cars are not car designers for a very good reason.
They have no idea on what works in car design and what doesn't.

 

Hey I resemble that remark.

 

I've always loved custom 49-51 Mercurys, a couple have slipped through my fingers but I've got a real good '51 coupe to keep now, and I started collecting pictures of custom Mercs as inspiration. What I've found out is that a bone stock '49 is better looking to my eyes than probably 3/4 or more of the custom ones I've seen. So I'm sticking to a pretty mild plan for my '51. This 49 belongs to someone on the board, it just doesn't need anything else, to me. I even like the door handles.

 

Parked like that (dumped), the front wheel/tire looks too far rearward in the fender opening, which for me draws attention to the problem and away from the nice profile. Perhaps the steering being slightly to the left of center adds to the rearward look? And also, I suppose, that the pic is not taken from 90* contributes to this too. I guess that this leads to my dislike of laying frame at shows; it rarely shows a car at its' best (actual ride height).

vic

 

#leaveitalone, Squablow

I've bought two cars I'd like to leave alone, '50 Hudson Brougham and '41 Buick Special Sedanette.....

I, too, am a huge fan of the simple style of the '49 Olds coupe!

 

I am most likely biased as my father has owned a 49 Olds fastback since I was three, but to me the front clip of the 49 and 50 Oldsmobiles are just about the meanest looking cars of the time, and a huge improvement over the 47 model year.

And since I am a huge GM fastback fan I would have to add that they are certainly better left alone. Although I suppose there are few out there were they have been chopped successfully.