Jump to content
Create New...

Recommended Posts

Posted

....French Poodles perk up cock their head to the side.

It's so much fun owning this car. Everyone stares at it, old

men & women with arthritis stand up and work through

the pain to tell me their personal stories of 1959 Buicks or

1957 Buicks or 1949 Chevys.

So far I've averaged about two conversations with

strangers every time I've taken out the car, & the Datsun

has not moved a mile in the past two weeks.

Yesterday I had a short interesting conversation with the

G/F's Grandmother's neighbor about the Buick... then I

got a hearty thumbs up and air horn from a truck driver in

a red Peterbilt 379 with high rise smoke stacks.

But then, after picking up Sofia at her daycare I pull out

onto the road and drive past a yuppie woman walking her

black French Poodles (those silly skinny ones with those

stupid looking pom-poms all over the place) and the dogs

stop dead in their tracks when they hear me approaching,

turn around and stare at the car as the owner stands,

slack jawed & stupified.

That made my day.

Now I have to get a pre-war pickup. :spin:

Posted

IMO, the '59 Buick is one of GM's most daring production designs ever. The way the crease forms an eyebrow over the headlights and follows back into a point at a tailfin hasn't really been matched by anybody. Personally, I think it's even a little more daring than the '59 Cadillac.

Speaking of which, I saw a pale pink '59 Cadillac convertible heading down Via dei Fori Imperiali past the Roman Forums. It's the second Cadillac I've seen in Italy (the other was a '70 Eldorado) and it was turning a lot of heads. You definitely don't confuse a Fiat Cinquecento with a tailfined Cadillac. :thumbsup:

Posted

Balthazar:

As I've said before, one of the things that pushed me over the edge

and convinced me that I HAD get a 1959 Buick was your Avatar

on this forum. The "Angry All Seeing Eye" as I call it.

Still have it right clicked on one of my hard-drives.

Now that you mentioned getting flashed, although that has not happened yet

a girl in the back of some blue '94-7 Accord whipped out a big sign that said

"SINGLE?" and then flipped it so it said her phone number. I had Sofia in the

B-59 and XP was with me so I just pointed at Sofia & mouthed "what do you

think?"

Posted Image

Mustang 84:

Yeah... I love '59 Cadillacs but not as much as '59 Buicks.

Hell even Pontiacs & Imperials would be higher on my list

of personal 1959 favorites. Seems there's 100 Caddys

for every one of '59 Buick, Imperial & Pontiac.

Posted

Hehehe... you know what's funnier than that O.B. is when we

went to get the Christmas Wreath for Big Red. Marcia was off

at some girly-friend's house and it was like 6:00pm on a Fri.

night. We hopped in Datsun 1 and off we went.

After we bought the wreath, XP I are driving away & we joked

about how the guy at the tree farm stand was probably

thinking "the gays can adopt now?" Or perhaps look at that

"alternative couple" with their cute daughter. :blink::P

Posted

'59 Cadillacs are a bit disgusting for the sheer overwroughtness of the fins. Its really all fin and nothing else. Plus, quality was abysmal compared to Cadillacs produces even the year right before.

Posted

Still... I would NEVER turn down a fair deal on a '59 Caddy.

It's an icon greater than Elvis or M.M.

Stamps in thirld world countries still feature '59 Cadillacs to

this day. And so what if the whole car is a big pedestal for

a pair of tailfins? It's still a million times cooler than 99.5%

of cars built after JFK's lifetime.

What are most modern cars but pedestals for rims shaped

like big bars of soap?

Posted Image

That's cool right there... I don't care who you are.

------------ P.S. Fly: So you ARE alive. Get my PM?

Posted

That image is definitely cool. However, the rest of the car is really just...ick. Gaudy, tasteless, and too eccentric compared to the svelte, dynamic models to follow and the ornate, elegant models that preceeded it. The '57 Chevies are icons, too, but there are better-looking cars even within the same model year.

Posted
I don't even want to tell you guys what popped into my head the second I saw the '59 fin photo. :AH-HA_wink:
Posted (edited)

'59 Cadillacs are a bit disgusting for the sheer overwroughtness of the fins. Its really all fin and nothing else. Plus, quality was abysmal compared to Cadillacs produces even the year right before.

"Abyssmal" ?? C'mon. Never encountered nor experienced a whisper of poor quality for C-59, nor a disparity vs. C-58. All that I've been in/ ridden in have been very solid & reeked of quality... the only exception being that the Italian-assembled Eldorado Broughams ('59-60) could not hold a quality candle to the Detroit-built '57-58 EBs (those extreme rarities, alas, I have not yet experienced).

I have no problem with the C-59. The fins are large, but they're relatively graceful- not the clunky '59 Dodge or '60 Imperial fins, nor the shorn lumps of O-59. The rest of the Cadillac is very much in line with the image of the marque- most would dare to say '58 is a farther departure...

>>"The '57 Chevies are icons, too, but there are better-looking cars even within the same model year."<<

I do not like '57 Chevies due to long-term chronic over-exposure... but there is not a bad line on the car. 'Better-looking' comes down to subtle subjectives, IMO. Give me a '57 Pontiac anyday- I like a little gravy on my potatoes.

Edited by balthazar
Posted

No matter what you might think of them, the '59 models from Detroit broke major new ground on many fronts - most especially design.

My Dad, who was "of the era" despised ALL of the '59s. He thought all of them were pure ugly. I never really understood that because he was a major Studebaker Hawk fan and to me, the other makers seem to have adopted the long,low,finned look of the Hawk in that year. Granted, Studebaker had been doing it since '53, so maybe he felt that the others were cribbing a bit from Studebaker.

Today OCN and I were marvelling at the sheetmetal of quite a few '59 and '60 cars at Carlisle, so they certainly have some staying power.

Posted

Sixty8 ... sounds like you are enjoying your "new" car immensely ;). Should be cool seeing you drive it this summer ;).

Heh ... now, if only I could see some gals asking that question of me ... he he.

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Some things just glitter and shine" ... Confederate Railroad ... 'Daddy Never Was The Cadillac Kind'

Posted

LIke the Empire State... reaching for the sky.

That IS America. Dare to dream.

As of last night I've driven 1400 miles w/out

one real "problem". The tires (bias-ply) need

to be balanced and I lost the RF hubcap a

few times but I bent the teeth out with a pair

of vicegrips and it has not happened in the

last 1000 miles.

It gets about 10.8 mpg, with me driving

mostly back roads, occassional 60-80mph

highway runs and a lot of idleing as I take a

million photos of the car in weird places. As

with that night in Boston with the photos in

the other thread.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...16570&st=20

Went to my first car show with the B-59

this past Sat. 99% of the people asked me

if it was a 1960. I'm not a fan of '60 Buicks

but I was not insulted, the B-59 was very

clean, crisp & futuristic.

More photos coming soon.

Posted

That 49 year old rusty slab of metal... yeah, that was THE plate that

I started the thread about like two years ago when I was looking for

a '59 Buick in NJ/NY/NH/OH/ME/VT.

I gt the car registered on Year of Manufacture plates... I carry the

reg. sticker in my registration sleeve, I do not even need to stick

the decal on the plate itself. It makes the B-59 look exactly as if it

was in 1959. The plate is burgundy and stamped just like the one

on the postcard, except in MUCH better shape.

Posted

>>"The tires (bias-ply) need to be balanced..."<<

More than likely, what you are feeling is a regular and balanced ride; welcome to the world of bias plys. Good looking in many iterations, but they give a squirrely, vibrating ride. I had a new set on when I bought my '64 Cat- ripped those b!tches right off for radials: night-n-day, my friend.

Posted

>>"The tires (bias-ply) need to be balanced..."<<

More than likely, what you are feeling is a regular and balanced ride; welcome to the world of bias plys. Good looking in many iterations, but they give a squirrely, vibrating ride. I had a new set on when I bought my '64 Cat- ripped those b!tches right off for radials: night-n-day, my friend.

Agreed. This car is a driver, dump the bias-plys Fast

I promise you will love the car even more when you do.

Posted

I love the REAL vintage look of the bias-plys... the Super-88s were pretty solid feeling.

I did a few high-speed runs on the highway with it and the car felt OK,

the B-59's bias-plys are weird, sometimes, 80mph is smooth like glass

and other times (on different road surfaces) the bias plys feel like they

are going to shake the car appart at 65mph.

Posted

Bias plys are like that- inconsistant. I remember seeing high speed pics of the tread on BPs on a roller at like 50, 75, 100 and 125 MPH, the treads squirmed and rippled at higher speeds like you would not think possible. I have no exact scientific explaination, but I'm telling you- all undesirable ride characteristics will disappear with radials.

MANY people have warned about putting radials on a car that does not have a 'radial tire-designed' suspension, but repeated discussion (often instigated by me) has failed to specify exactly why not. There is not much difference between a B-59 front end and a -say- '77 LeSabre front end (except for cheaper bushings in the '77). B-59 has a truck-like over-build in it's design. Just a warning about possible comments.

Be very careful what size you put on the B-59, tho, heightwise for appearance-sake and width-wise for safety's sake. Factory rims don't have much of a Safety Ridge on them- high cornering loads are a debatable worry.

A stock B-59 4400-4600 tire is a 7.60 x15. 4700-4800s rode 8.00 x15, which is a 205/78-15: 27.5" tall. It's getting harder to find 70-series radials anymore, but a 225/70-15 is also 27.5" tall. 205's are too skinny for such a large car, IMO. TO get a 60 that tall you'd need a 265/60. I would not go wider than 225 on a factory rim.

I once stuck 225/60-15s on the front of my B-59 for a look-see, but at 25.5" tall, they looked ridiculous. I'm going with 225/70-15s up front.... unless I bite the bullet, switch rims and go to 16s.

Posted

Thanks Balthazar!

As always with '50s & '60s cars you have a wealth of information on the topic.

I hope to visit you soon so you can take my B-59 for a spin and troubleshoot

some of the semi-serious sounds coming from the suspension.

Yes, BTW I whole-heartedly agree, there can NOT be such a thing as a type of

suspension that does better with imprecise & sloppy old Bias-Ply tires than a

modern, tight set of radials. Tire technology IS one aspect that has improved

quite a bit in the past few decades.

Posted

Cool... I'm heading to Ohio for about a week around Memorial Day weekend...will get my oldies out.... it's always fun driving around in the '69 Mustang, even with just an AM radio, listening to the rumble of the 351.... or driving the '87 Mustang GT and remembering when I had hair :)

I will also probably drive one of my mom's Cougars (the '68 390/automatic XR-7 is easy to drive, but the '67 289 3-spd manual and '68 302 3-spd manual ones (both with manual steering and manual brakes) are handfuls...

Posted

'69 Mustang, even with just an AM radio, listening to the rumble of the 351

(Remembers My Own 69 Mach 1 351)

Beats head on table is reminded of scars on my hands, 100's of time stranded out on the road, getting locked in junkyards looking for parts at night, replacing the timing chain at least 5 times, Shutting it down a block before my house and coast in front so i can sneak inside with out getting in trouble, and loosing to a AMC Javelin.

God I hated that Car!!!!!!!

My 73 Monte Carlo was a great Replacement, However it cost me about $10 a day in gas to drive it. Also a broken fuel pump caused me to break my toe when i kicked my car on I-94 at 4:30am. Also the old lady that owned before me some how destroyed a TH-400 how is that possible?

Posted

Cool... I'm heading to Ohio for about a week around Memorial Day weekend...

*raises eyebrow*

That trip taking you near Chicagoland at all? If so ... let me know....

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

my radio show:CD SHOWCASE.7:30p central.Friday/April 27 = www.wrmn1410.com

Posted

*raises eyebrow*

That trip taking you near Chicagoland at all? If so ... let me know....

Nope...flying direct Denver<->Pittsburgh.

Posted

Never been to Chicago.... I'd love to though.

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search