1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #16 – November 28, 2006, 09:38:49 AM Quote from: tbirdscott;115290I thought those kits were only available for the MN12's? maybe he modified the kit to work??Either way, poor tc.ScottKit comes from http://www.easyrods.com and is all fiberglass so it probably wouldn't be that tough to modify it if you have the skill to install it in the first place. If you like them they're all over the Daytona Turkey Run.... Quote Selected
1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #17 – November 28, 2006, 10:10:52 AM some of those on the site are actually really cool. Quote Selected
1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #18 – November 28, 2006, 10:46:30 AM I like 'em too, and for $3k for the kit and about $2500 for a '94-'97 V8 Bird you've got a cheap, attractive, and reliable hot rod that anyone with even moderate mechanical/body skills could build themselves. Counting body and paint work you should easily be able to do that car for well under $10k. Just try to buy a decent 49-51 Ford for under $10k, and even then you'd have a flathead (or SBC somebody swapped in), drum brakes, 6 volt system, bench seats w/o seatbelts, no A/C/cruise/power accessories, etc. I'd love to see a kit for the 83-86 models - the chrome window trim and non-flush windows (especially with vent windows) would work so much better when going for the "classic" look. The 87-88 Cougar roof line and rear 1/4 window would be badass with that kit as well (I don't really like the 89-97 Cougar-based ones shown on that site) Quote Selected
1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #19 – November 28, 2006, 12:12:13 PM Quote from: Thunder Chicken;115925Just try to buy a decent 49-51 Ford for under $10k,Easy. Very easy to find a NICE driver one for less than half that.http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138009&highlight=1949Quoteand even then you'd have a flathead (or SBC somebody swapped in), drum brakes, 6 volt system, bench seats w/o seatbelts, no A/C/cruise/power accessories, etc.You say all this like it's a bad thing. Have you ever even owned an old car? Bust it off, smell the fuel, open a cowl vent and manually roll down the windows if it's hot outside. I'd say it beats driving in an '80s car all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.I never understood the '50 Ford/'89 Tbirds, or '40 Ford/ S-10 truck, or '51 Studebaker/ '79 El Camino abortions. Good Lord they are all ****ing ugly. Putting new stuff in an old car "can" be cool, but bolting on tacky fenders and grilles onto a new car is NEVER cool. I guess different strokes for different folks, but that is one trend I will never get. Quote Selected
1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #20 – November 28, 2006, 06:27:10 PM Quote from: 46Tbird;115927Easy. Very easy to find a NICE driver one for less than half that.http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138009&highlight=1949 Ok, so for $4500 you get a nearly 60 year old car withFour wheel drum brakesA 2-bbl 350Non-working windshield wipersSolid, evidence of body work here and there.Trunk floor soft, spare tire well, rusted through.New floors pans screwed down over rough originals. New rocker panels Hood “blew-up” at like 55 mph on previous owner, but I have back on and locked down for worry free drivingcenter link rubs against oil pan, but does affect steering, could use rebuild and alignment for long distance and for your new tires sakeFinish is shot, I began sanding for the classic “in progress” look; a quick re-spray would do wonders.Bumpers o.k. front a little off kilter, (but nothing a large tree wouldn’t fix)Chrome rough, I have all four bumper guards, there are in various conditions, mostly bad, but serviceable Doors sag some, driver’s door likes to open slightly but stays shut when locked from inside, could use a new mechanizes, key hole aren’t functioning (your going to shave ‘em anyway!) Trunk lid shuts, (lock doesn’t work) but lid stays down ( cuz it’s really heavy) and is driven as isTail pan, (sheet metal under the truck) is Swiss cheese and needs replacement. ( new replacements are available ( part # 8A-7040324).Sounds more like a full time project than a nice driver. Still, you MIGHT be able to stay under $10k after fixing all that (except the body)... but my $10k estimate included the car, kit, bodywork and paint, so you'd still be ahead money-wise with the MN12.QuoteYou say all this like it's a bad thing. Have you ever even owned an old car? Bust it off, smell the fuel, open a cowl vent and manually roll down the windows if it's hot outside. I'd say it beats driving in an '80s car all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.Yes, I have driven many old cars, including my old '66 Galaxie 500 (390 4-bbl, 4-wheel drum brakes), two 70's Firebirds, a '78 Skylark, an '83 Chev 1/2 ton (I know, an 80's vehicle, but essentially unchanged from 73-87), my first Thunderbird (again, an 80's car, but with its carbureted 3.8 it was as primitive as any "old" car) and while they were all fun they couldn't even begin to be as reliable or comfortable as a late 90's MN12 (or even a late 80's Fox) would be. Old can be quaint, but being broken down all the time, or constantly having to make adjustments, or fearing to drive further than a hundred miles from home, is not my idea of fun.To say that a 130-horse flathead, two speed tranny and four wheel drum brakes that you can only drive on sunny days is more fun to drive than a 200+ horse 4.6, 5.0 or 3.8 SC, four-speed auto (or 5-speed standard), independent rear end, four wheel disc brakes, antilock brakes, airbags, power everything, leather seats, power moonroof car that you can buy parts for all day at any dealership or jobber and drive at 28MPG, 12 months of the year with no fear of wrecking a real classic is kinda the automotive equivalent of S&M. To bring the '49 in your example to even close to the same driveability levels as an MN12 would cost tens of thousands of dollars. 99% of the people that saw you driving the MN12-converted-49 would never know it wasn't real, and would admire the "work" you did fitting flush glass, independent rear and modern interior to a "classic".Then consider that the body kit costs about what a good ground effects kit costs for a ricer and the screaming bargain that kit is becomes even more... um... screaming.Then there's the trying to find a classic for a reasonable price thing. 49-51 Fords might be common in Arizona, Texas or California but try finding a decent one in eastern Canada. If you find one under $10k you'll be sinking another $5k into the body just to make it driveable. Yeah, I could go to Texas and bring that car back, but that would add another $3k to the price of the car before even turning a wrench to fix it up. Meanwhile people are practically giving 4.6-liter MN12's away.QuoteI never understood the '50 Ford/'89 Tbirds, or '40 Ford/ S-10 truck, or '51 Studebaker/ '79 El Camino abortions. Good Lord they are all ****ing ugly. Putting new stuff in an old car "can" be cool, but bolting on tacky fenders and grilles onto a new car is NEVER cool. I guess different strokes for different folks, but that is one trend I will never get.As you said: Different strokes for different folks. Ya know, there are a lot of people that consider our cars ugly (and a lot considered them ugly when new)... Quote Selected
1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #21 – November 28, 2006, 06:48:23 PM Flatheads never made 130hp stock. :DI just know that with the time and money that someone would have to put into making those, that they could have a really REALLY bitchin car that was actually old, actually cool, and actually reliable enough to do all the things you're talking about there. Besides, I wouldn't trust an 18yr old 220K mile Tbird to make it any further than a '50 Ford. :D Quote Selected
51' Reply #22 – November 29, 2006, 07:37:42 PM Sorry guys......I like it.I love the 1951 Fords. (I was born in 1951)Modern car and nostalic look and feel. Quote Selected
1951 Turbo Coupe!? Reply #23 – November 30, 2006, 02:40:02 AM Well if you guys liked that then you'll love this!... Quote Selected
Topic: 1951 Turbo Coupe!? (Read 3938 times)
previous topic - next topic
