Fords, lincons, mercs...tinny?

[blight]

I have been talking to a friends of mine and I like things that are different. I went to car craft this past summer and the brainered fall campout and it seems that every one has the same type of cars. I see that not too many people have montegos', gsxs', w-30s', judges', javelins', rebels', and AMXs'.

So I'm looking at getting one of these. Seeing that no one answered an old merc question of mine I think I'll refine it.

This buddy of mine says that all ford related producs of this time period were more "tinny" than the gm or chrsler cars. He says they're body lines were'nt always matching, that even the glass was glued in rather than screwed in, "just tinny". Now I'm not so sure about this. When he says this he means like a "can" not "small". So has anyone had any personal experience in this?
--------------
Caddy note - don't read if you don't care
Whatever I do I plan in dropping in a 70' caddy 500. They rated at 400 and 500 torque. Though I know a guy who took the stock and on a dyno and made 430 hp and 535 torque. Plus its the lightest of the big-blocks. with an aluminum intake it will weigh only 40lbs more than a small block chevy. with alum. heads it weighs less. And they don't cost much. They're only problem is they suck down alot of gas.
--------------
So what do you all think?

[PeteRR]

The restored FoMoCo cars I've seen were decent. All of the Big Three had quality control problems back in the late 60s thru the mid 80s. They all have problems that can be fixed by a car owner.

[MagicRat]

Chevys are like belly buttons, it seems everyone has one.
I like all cars, but my collecting has been a bit odd - ball. The more unusual muscle cars are more interesting to me.
It's wothwhile to have something a bit more unique.
As for Fords of the time being tinny, it depends on the Ford.
GM cars of the time were all built much the same. If you look at a Chevy or a Cadillac (especially a base model) of the time, there was not a big difference in materials, fit and finish, despite a huge difference in the new purchase price.

Fords seem to have a much wider range of quality.
My '68 T-Bird is built to a higher standard, with better materials, fit and finish than my '69 GTO, even though they were close in price when new.
My '67 Lincoln was truly exceptionally high quality for the time.
But the cheap Fords, the Mustangs and the Falcons had serious structiral deficiencies in their unit bodies. They were not durable cars and would suffer from rust and metal fatigue - related structural problems far more easily than a GM car.

Therefore, for Fords, it depends on the model.

[blight]

Then what do you think of the cyclones and torinos? What are they incompared to when compared to gm cars in "fit and finish"

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Chevys are like belly buttons, it seems everyone has one.
I like all cars, but my collecting has been a bit odd - ball. The more unusual muscle cars are more interesting to me.
It's wothwhile to have something a bit more unique.
As for Fords of the time being tinny, it depends on the Ford.
GM cars of the time were all built much the same. If you look at a Chevy or a Cadillac (especially a base model) of the time, there was not a big difference in materials, fit and finish, despite a huge difference in the new purchase price.

Fords seem to have a much wider range of quality.
My '68 T-Bird is built to a higher standard, with better materials, fit and finish than my '69 GTO, even though they were close in price when new.
My '67 Lincoln was truly exceptionally high quality for the time.
But the cheap Fords, the Mustangs and the Falcons had serious structiral deficiencies in their unit bodies. They were not durable cars and would suffer from rust and metal fatigue - related structural problems far more easily than a GM car.

Therefore, for Fords, it depends on the model.

[MrPbody]

The plain truth is, the GM cars are the "survivors", which is why there are so many more of them still around. I would have to say, MY '68 T-bird was a POS compared to my '70 GTO. My dad's '66 Fairlane was a decent car, but "tinny" is a good way to describe the hollow sound it made when hitting bumps, just gong down the road.
There was a time when people would GIVE you a Fairlane or Charger, just to get it out of the yard. That changed when the supply of Chevelles, GTOs and 442s began to dry up, and the prices rose to a point of rediculousness.
Finally, the GM cars had FRAMES. Neither the Fords OR the Mopes did. All the aforementioned Fords (including the '68 T-Bird) were uni-body cars. And, unlike GM uni-body cars (F-body, X-body), there was no real 'subframe", either, just a bunch of stamped steel folded into what loosely resembles box tubing.
I realize everyone has their own opinion, but mine is tempered with 30 years of working on all these cars, in one form or another. While some of the Mopes are really fast, and some of the Fords are pretty, none of them hold a candle to the GM cars, as far as quality and durability. And that is NOT just an opinion...

[PeteRR]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

The plain truth is, the GM cars are the "survivors", which is why there are so many more of them still around. I would have to say, MY '68 T-bird was a POS compared to my '70 GTO. My dad's '66 Fairlane was a decent car, but "tinny" is a good way to describe the hollow sound it made when hitting bumps, just gong down the road.
There was a time when people would GIVE you a Fairlane or Charger, just to get it out of the yard. That changed when the supply of Chevelles, GTOs and 442s began to dry up, and the prices rose to a point of rediculousness.
Finally, the GM cars had FRAMES. Neither the Fords OR the Mopes did. All the aforementioned Fords (including the '68 T-Bird) were uni-body cars. And, unlike GM uni-body cars (F-body, X-body), there was no real 'subframe", either, just a bunch of stamped steel folded into what loosely resembles box tubing.
I realize everyone has their own opinion, but mine is tempered with 30 years of working on all these cars, in one form or another. While some of the Mopes are really fast, and some of the Fords are pretty, none of them hold a candle to the GM cars, as far as quality and durability. And that is NOT just an opinion...

I agree that Mopars of that period had and still have a problem with rust protection. They get literally eaten alive by it. But there are more GMs surviving because they made so many more of them. What are the production numbers for '68 Chevelles compared to '68 Road Runners and Chargers?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

The plain truth is, the GM cars are the "survivors", which is why there are so many more of them still around. I would have to say, MY '68 T-bird was a POS compared to my '70 GTO. My dad's '66 Fairlane was a decent car, but "tinny" is a good way to describe the hollow sound it made when hitting bumps, just gong down the road.
There was a time when people would GIVE you a Fairlane or Charger, just to get it out of the yard. That changed when the supply of Chevelles, GTOs and 442s began to dry up, and the prices rose to a point of rediculousness.
Finally, the GM cars had FRAMES. Neither the Fords OR the Mopes did. All the aforementioned Fords (including the '68 T-Bird) were uni-body cars. And, unlike GM uni-body cars (F-body, X-body), there was no real 'subframe", either, just a bunch of stamped steel folded into what loosely resembles box tubing.
I realize everyone has their own opinion, but mine is tempered with 30 years of working on all these cars, in one form or another. While some of the Mopes are really fast, and some of the Fords are pretty, none of them hold a candle to the GM cars, as far as quality and durability. And that is NOT just an opinion...

Well, I have been working with these cars for 20 years and I agree with some points you make you are incorrect in others.

If you owned a '68 T-Bird, you never looked underneath it. All 67 to 79 T-Birds had full frames, the '67 to 71 had a shortened version of the full size Galaxie frame.

Just because something is unit body DOES NOT mean its inferior in durability to a full frame. All Chevy Vans from '71 to 95 are unit body as were '84 to 2001 Cherokees. Both designs were extremely strong and durable.

The 58-66 T-Birds were unit body (as were the '58 to 69 Lincolns). But this is not necessarily a bad thing. The T-Birds and Lincolns were extremely strong (and heavy), so much so that they were favourites at the demolition Derbys. (before their collector values went up.)
This is similar to the Imperials of the 60's.

As for the '68 T-Bird being a POS compared to a GTO? Well it is in terms of handling and steering, yes, there is no comparison. The GTO was intended as a performance car, the T-Bird was a luxury car. However, the T-Bird has better fit and finish, with better materials, (which is the subject of this thread.)

All the full size Fords were always full frame and very durable.
The exception, as I stated before, the unit bodys of the Mustangs and Fairlanes (they were very similar) are deficient for long term durability.

So, again, with Fords, they were inconsistent in quality and durability. Some sucked and some (especially the '61 to 65 Lincoln) were the best stuff Detroit ever made at the time.

As for Chrysler? All unit body Mopars I have had (Duster, Dart and Fury) ended up with broken torsion bar springs up front and rear leaf spring mounts ripped off and poking through the trunk floor. Thats not such a good durability record.

However, I do agree with you, in that ALL GM cars are durable and long lasting They never made a weak or fragile car until the Vega.
For 60's iron you can't go wrong with any GM car.

[blight]

Great posting on this one thanks all!

Though still no answer on the 69' torino or cyclone? One of you asked to ask about specific models well these are the ones I'm asking about.

In any case I might end up buying this GSX that I'm helpng my buddy restore. Great car, its a 70'.

Any opions on the cady swap BTW?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by blight

Great posting on this one thanks all!

Though still no answer on the 69' torino or cyclone? One of you asked to ask about specific models well these are the ones I'm asking about.

In any case I might end up buying this GSX that I'm helpng my buddy restore. Great car, its a 70'.

Any opions on the cady swap BTW?

First of all, forget about the Caddy swap.
What you say is true, except there are VERY few performance parts for these engines. Also, a swap into a Buick Olds Pontiac would not be too difficult, but why?? when those cars had excellent 400 and 455 engine options? Those engines can easily make the power of the Caddy, and performance parts to make more power are readily available.

Also a Buick Olds Pontiac with the original engine or the right 455 would be worth a decent amount of money. A caddy engine in one would REDUCE its value by thousands of $$.

As for the Torino/Cyclone......I like them because they were unusual. They were a bit slower than a comperable GM car because they were a bit heavier. Ford had a huge variety of engines available in these.
The best was the 429 engine option. The 351 C was also very good, as was the 390.
The 302 and 351 W engines are have limited performance potential compared to the above.
Do some research before you buy.
A GM car is generally easier to restore than a Ford, but buy what you like as that will hold your enthusiasm more.

BTW your friend you mentioned in the original post is misinformed. Almost every domestic car from the mid 60's onwards to the present day has glued in windshields. Its universal today because its the best way to hold in a windshield.

[PeteRR]

I've got a car for you. '63 Pontiac Catalina. 389 w/ column auto trans. $1k.

I went to look at it on Friday. Some surface rust and some cancer under the rocker panels.

[blight]

Well there are plenty of caddy performance parts. You just need to look around.

Plus I don't care about the value afterwords- i don't plan on selling what I buy - I buy for life.

Also I have a friend who can get the parts quick and cheap.

BTW I was considering a 70 455 though I prefer the caddy motor, in the end to make 600 hp its going to be cheaper. plus the caddy is more powerfull to start with so I can leave the thing alone and doo suspension work on it. The 70 gsx with a 60 455 pulled 13.8s in the 1/4mi. on 70 suspension. I've got a buddy with a stock 96 comaro and pulls the same. Same weight, less power, and better suspension. I should be in the 12s pretty easily. I'm going to try to beat up my bosses viper that is one of my goals.

[blight]

Well there are plenty of caddy performance parts. You just need to look around.

Plus I don't care about the value afterwords- i don't plan on selling what I buy - I buy for life.

Also I have a friend who can get the parts quick and cheap.

BTW I was considering a 70 455 though I prefer the caddy motor, in the end to make 600 hp its going to be cheaper. plus the caddy is more powerfull to start with so I can leave the thing alone and doo suspension work on it. The 70 gsx with a 60 455 pulled 13.8s in the 1/4mi. on 70 suspension. I've got a buddy with a stock 96 comaro and pulls the same. Same weight, less power, and better suspension. I should be in the 12s pretty easily. I'm going to try to beat up my boss's viper that is one of my goals. he pulls 11.90s

[MrPbody]

I beg to differ. The T-birds WERE unibody. Been under many, many of them. And as for fit and finish, yours must have come from an assembly plant East of the Mississippi or something. The ones from San Jose and Fremont were falling apart on the showroom floor.
To answer the original question, the Torinos and Cyclones were barely fast, handled like crap, and rusted out as fast as the Mopes. Though they did offer many engine options, very few were worth owning. A 3,500 lb. car with a 351C in it is a turd, won't get out of its' own way. It takes mega-bucks to get it fast. The 390s and 428s were also a similar joke. Mt 400 GTO NEVER got beat by one of those, though I raced dozens. Now, 429 SCJs were good runners. But they always seemed to be in cars with tall gears. No match for The Judge in a 1/4 mile race, but would pass it rather quickly thereafter.
Of course, most of this, concerning performance, is strictly MY experience, street racing back in the early '70s in Southern California. Others may have had different experiences with similar cars. I DO know, when I would show up with my '70 GTO Judge, Ram Air III (the "little one"), everyone would laugh and tell me how slow Pontiacs were. By the end of the evening, I would have money from nearly all who dared, in my pocket, and nobody talking bad about GTOs anymore! That was when most street cars were relatively stock. Mine was "bone" stock, when it went 13.63 @ 103 at Orange County in 1973. That included the G70-14 bias plys... In those days, a "true" 13 second car was badass! You'ld be surprised how many youngsters with 350 Camaros or 289 Mustangs would say their cars went 12s. I was one that didn't exagerate the performance capability, and didn't bother to argue with them about their "12 second" cars, that were really 15 second cars. The look on a face, 10 car lengths behind, is PRICELESS!
If you're basing your statement about the GS going high 13s on that "shootout", don't make the mistake of assuming ALL of them can. Only the "Stage 1s" were even close to being competitive with the Chevelle SSs and GTOs. The "regular" Grand Sports were 15 second cars on a good day.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

I beg to differ. The T-birds WERE unibody. Been under many, many of them. And as for fit and finish, yours must have come from an assembly plant East of the Mississippi or something. The ones from San Jose and Fremont were falling apart on the showroom floor.
.

Repectfully, you are wrong on this. You stated your '68 is unit body and you are incorrect. I suspect you have your model year confused with an earlier one.
As I posted before, the '58 to '66 T-birds were unit body, but the '67 to 79 were full frame.
On this I have no doubt. I owned a '67 and I own two '68's. They are full frame.

I know what a unit body Ford looks like because I owned a '67 Lincoln for 13 years and I have looked at many many T-birds, since I am looking around for a 61 to 66 Bird right now.

I used to be a mechanic (before I became an accountant) and I know the difference in construction.

As for being from an assembly plant out east?? All T-birds from '58 through '76 were built at the Wixom, Michigan plant, and no where else, therefore quality was consistent.

As for Ford 429's, Ford made excellent engines, but as you say, really never had anything truly decent to stick them in.
I have CJ exhaust manifolds on a completely stock 429 in my T-bird and it is only a whisker slower than my '69 GTO (it's no Ram Air III but its a YS block with a Holly 650 spread bore on an aluminum Offenhauser manifold with an HEI ignition). The fact that the Ford is 400 lbs heavier says a lot for a stock 429.

That being said though, otherwise I found your comments very interesting. The kids racing on the streets back then loved to slag just about anything that was not a Chevy or a big Mopar, more from ignorance than anything else.

[blight]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Repectfully, you are wrong on this. You stated your '68 is unit body and you are incorrect. I suspect you have your model year confused with an earlier one.
As I posted before, the '58 to '66 T-birds were unit body, but the '67 to 79 were full frame.
On this I have no doubt. I owned a '67 and I own two '68's. They are full frame.

I know what a unit body Ford looks like because I owned a '67 Lincoln for 13 years and I have looked at many many T-birds, since I am looking around for a 61 to 66 Bird right now.

I used to be a mechanic (before I became an accountant) and I know the difference in construction.

As for being from an assembly plant out east?? All T-birds from '58 through '76 were built at the Wixom, Michigan plant, and no where else, therefore quality was consistent.

As for Ford 429's, Ford made excellent engines, but as you say, really never had anything truly decent to stick them in.
I have CJ exhaust manifolds on a completely stock 429 in my T-bird and it is only a whisker slower than my '69 GTO (it's no Ram Air III but its a YS block with a Holly 650 spread bore on an aluminum Offenhauser manifold with an HEI ignition). The fact that the Ford is 400 lbs heavier says a lot for a stock 429.

That being said though, otherwise I found your comments very interesting. The kids racing on the streets back then loved to slag just about anything that was not a Chevy or a big Mopar, more from ignorance than anything else.

You could just hang him you know!