Whitecloud's (gen-u-whine) Long Lost Brother

That's a pretty middle-of-the-road price, if it's in decent shape.  There are a couple very similar cars here in New England, one, a '55 white/black that I've used for dimensions for Gary in South Africa for his build (and Bob Carley's IM-6, too) and an early '56  transitionary car white/fawn down in New Bedford.  Both are semi-rare cars and both guys have turned down offers for almost twice the BAT asking price.  I totally understand that price if it's rare in some way or has a heritage.  For a run-of-the-mill Speedster, though, someone else will have to buy it - not ME!

Robert M posted:

The car has a correct four speed but it's not the original transmission. It also has Webers not Solex or Zenith carburetors. The car was resprayed the correct color and a brand new interior.

The car belonged to Reggie Jackson so it has a name to it.

but...most importantly, as Stan wrote, it looks like Whitecloud!

Will Hesch posted:
Robert M posted:

The car has a correct four speed but it's not the original transmission. It also has Webers not Solex or Zenith carburetors. The car was resprayed the correct color and a brand new interior.

The car belonged to Reggie Jackson so it has a name to it.

but...most importantly, as Stan wrote, it looks like Whitecloud!

Hence the price!!

I drove a '62 Vette while down south, owned by one of the car club guys.  I believe he named it Christine, after the car in the horror movie.  That thing rode way stiffer than my F250 pickup and I quickly found out why the steering wheels were so large and looked like they belonged in a Peterbilt truck - no power steering and really stiff to turn.  Still, I can at least say I drove one for a day.  

edsnova posted:

...and regretted it immediateley, I'd imagine.

Friend on another board reminded me yesterday that there was a Chevette diesel as well. I've been cringing ever since.

The primary problem with the Chevette (as most people purchased them) was that the 1.6 had nowhere near enough power for an automatic transmission or air conditioning. Without those options choking it off, it was basic, reliable transportation. My ownership experience was exactly what I expected of it in 1982. It was at least as reliable as a Type 1, and probably more so  (admittedly, a low hurdle to clear). 

Dad had one with the diesel and AC. It was everything you’d think it would be. 

edsnova posted:

Late 1970s, early 1980s: dark, dark days in automotive history, mostly.

Bob: tongue firmly in cheek. A TC is sacred ground in a way that even a TD can't ever be. No Volvos allowed under the hood, let alone Chevettes.

Yes.  One must be faithful to the XPAG, without which most of us would not know what a sports car is.  The one benefit of the U.S. getting into WWII, was the influx of MGs afterward.  :-)  Americans suddenly realized a bloated Buick was neither what they needed nor what they wanted if they enjoyed some spirited driving (with due respect to Tom Cahill).

https://www.hemmings.com/magaz...-s-XPAG/3730041.html

I don't know.

The interstate system was built post-war in the '50s and '60s. The large, floaty transportation rigs of the era are almost perfectly suited for suburban living and car travel over long distances. MGs and the like (Porsche's of the era included) were not well suited for these roads.

We've got good sporting roads in some isolated places, but this isn't how 99% of the country uses their cars. Even our motorsports reflect this. In Europe, it was F1. In the US, it was the Indy 500 and a drag-strip in every town. They developed the 911. We developed the big-block Corvette.

We still all want to get across 2 time-zones in one day, and still get to the Holidome by dinner time. In Europe, "sporting" cars were meant to cut up the Stelvio Pass. In the US, "sports cars" were meant to pummel the next guy into submission in a race between the lights. European cars of the 50s and 60s were fragile little toys. A SBC would go 100k mi before it needed a valve-job, some rings, and a pat on the head as it headed out the door for another 100k mi.

In '74, the government got in the business of telling the market what it was that we wanted. Impact bumpers, fuel economy standards, etc. pushed manufacturers into spending engineering resources in unprofitable places they hadn't before. Japanese cars were very well suited for this new climate, and American cars were not. There were some bad cars indeed-- mostly decent cars choked off with EGRs, catalytic converters, and 5 mph impact bumpers. The low-water mark at GM were the V8 diesels of the '80s-- cars that nobody was asking for, meant to circumvent a lot of emissions and economy regs.

Cars are an order of magnitude better than they were then, but what people want to buy hasn't changed all that much. Now it's cross-over SUVs-- which I hate, but which make a lot of sense. The roads are terrible, and something with long suspension travel, and the ability to ride higher and see further insulates the occupants from the mess that is modern travel. What better way to sit in stop-n-go traffic on the morning commute than in a high-riding, cushy cocoon with massaging seats and a heated steering wheel? It's like a long-travel 1972 Cadillac DeVille, which lends the illusion of being rough-'n-ready to guys who get manicures and carry man-purses, and badly need their ride to reaffirm their masculinity.

I love my fake speedster, but I'm aware that it's a terrible excuse for a real car. It's not ever going to be on the Stelvio Pass, and it spends a lot of time cruising up the interstate, getting to some vague approximation of a sporting road. It's not ever going to challenge a Hellcat at the stoplights, and it's horribly dangerous.

I care not, but I'm weird that way.

Stan and others:  My point was, that it was the MGTC, brought back by returning GIs that really started the sports car craze in the States.  Prior to that, land yachts were the dominant vehicles.  Racing started at Watkins Glen, with the MGTC the car that got everyone turned on to what a sports car was.  Read up on what Tom Cahill had to say about that back then.

Regardless of the interstate highways and large cars, that was not the point of my post.  I certainly am aware of the American worship of the V8, but that was a different stream of car development.

Imho the ultimate "sporty car" designed for U.S. roads and attitude was Ferrari's 365. More properly thought of as a 2-seat GT touring car, it was said to be exceedingly comfortable and yet confidence-inspiring right up to its 170+ mph top speed. Very handy indeed for chewing up the miles between the Stuckeys. GM was unable to produce a comparable car until the four-cam Mercury Marine-powered C4s came two decades later.

By which time, of course, the roads were falling apart such that 170 mph blasts had become even less wise than they'd been in 1969. 

As all here know, I am a huge fan of the MG T cars, and of them, I think the best advice I've ever heard came from Tom Magliozzi of NPR (or it could have been Ray, his brother). Anyway, Tommy had a TD and his personal rule was never to drive it on any road that was built after the car was made, in 1952.

No interstate travel at all. 

 

Gordon Nichols posted:

I did like my 740ii tho.....Especially when cruising between places on the interstates...  

In those odd times when it was out of the shop.

I had an E39 540i, with the same engine, built as Germans came to fully understand this country. That car pulled like a freight-train and had the best seat I have ever (or will ever) sat in.

Sadly, it also spent as much time on my trailer as it did on the interstate.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×