JIM GESSWEIN MOPAR AUCTION

[saforwardlook]

I would never choose a chevelle over a charger. I love chargers. I loved them 40 years ago. Even if GM did stay full frame. That's one thing I can't forgive them for.
I currently have two C's and a B and they all should have full frames!!
They should have been that way until all the cars downsized.

No engineer will agree with you. Unibody designs are stronger and lighter than full frames. No one uses full frames even today even on the Mercedes S class. They lead to squeaks and rattles and reduce handling capability from all the flex and do poorly in crash tests.

 

[brougham brummel]

Wow, i love the round headlight giant Monte Carlos.Would love one with a 454.B.B

 

[Rustyrodknocker]

No engineer will agree with you. Unibody designs are stronger and lighter than full frames. No one uses full frames even today even on the Mercedes S class. They lead to squeaks and rattles and reduce handling capability from all the flex and do poorly in crash tests.

@saforwardlook.
I believe I have offended you and that is not my intent. I know it's time to drop the conversation. But I find it difficult. Are you sure there are "No" engineers that would share my opinion?

John Delorean put a concept in my head from something he once wrote.
It has to do with the conflict between building the best you can period and building the best you can do and still be in business next year.
These cars are built for specific markets and markets have price points.

Delorean said to pay attention to who moves first or last with certain concepts and what markets they pertain to.
Some improvements are product improvements and some are process improvements. Meaning improvements to profitability.
Some improvements are simply changes back to what previously existed. Generations of new designers will change things to make their mark only to be reversed again in the future. It's 2020 and manufacturers will still pitch the "new easy to read instrumentation". I'm pretty sure that concept was vetted nearly 100 years ago.
Anyhow, there is no one specific answer to all these questions.
But Delorean did hit on stub frame versus frame and that was specifically a factory improvement.
GM did not do it to the mid and fullsize cars for a reason. They converted the lines when they got smaller. Hudsons were unibody in the 50's it was not new. The first big brand cars to go frameless were the lowest markets. The cheapest cars.
Not the top market cars.
He predicted the future of front wheel drive as standard. Process improvement.

The full size unibody cars from the 60 and 70's were simply adaptations. Framed cars with no frames. They were not designed from ground up with a frameless concept as today production cars.
Safety. I don't know a lot to be honest. Usually when people wave that flag they seem to be trying to justify something.
To me it looks like most cars designed to 120mph have crumple zones and air bags.
The cars that are designed to go 220mph have steel frames and body harnesses.
I can't even speak on it. I drive old ****.

When you look way up market, to where money does not matter. As in several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most those cars have frames and many are leading the engineering and design world. No price point.

When I was 15. I was "mopar rules!" "Mopar or no car!". Truth was I didn't know ****. I just thought they were badass. (I was right about that)
Now as an adult with 30 years of weekends under my belt with my cars I have a more objective point of view.
Chrysler did many good things. Two additional 1/4 20 screws per valve cover! I love it! The timing cover on an LA series engine looks like it's part of a machine and not something to bake a cake in! Love it!
There is much good. I respect your opinion. I'm still learning.

 

[saforwardlook]

@saforwardlook.
I believe I have offended you and that is not my intent. I know it's time to drop the conversation. But I find it difficult. Are you sure there are "No" engineers that would share my opinion?

John Delorean put a concept in my head from something he once wrote.
It has to do with the conflict between building the best you can period and building the best you can do and still be in business next year.
These cars are built for specific markets and markets have price points.

Delorean said to pay attention to who moves first or last with certain concepts and what markets they pertain to.
Some improvements are product improvements and some are process improvements. Meaning improvements to profitability.
Some improvements are simply changes back to what previously existed. Generations of new designers will change things to make their mark only to be reversed again in the future. It's 2020 and manufacturers will still pitch the "new easy to read instrumentation". I'm pretty sure that concept was vetted nearly 100 years ago.
Anyhow, there is no one specific answer to all these questions.
But Delorean did hit on stub frame versus frame and that was specifically a factory improvement.
GM did not do it to the mid and fullsize cars for a reason. They converted the lines when they got smaller. Hudsons were unibody in the 50's it was not new. The first big brand cars to go frameless were the lowest markets. The cheapest cars.
Not the top market cars.
He predicted the future of front wheel drive as standard. Process improvement.

The full size unibody cars from the 60 and 70's were simply adaptations. Framed cars with no frames. They were not designed from ground up with a frameless concept as today production cars.
Safety. I don't know a lot to be honest. Usually when people wave that flag they seem to be trying to justify something.
To me it looks like most cars designed to 120mph have crumple zones and air bags.
The cars that are designed to go 220mph have steel frames and body harnesses.
I can't even speak on it. I drive old ****.

When you look way up market, to where money does not matter. As in several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most those cars have frames and many are leading the engineering and design world. No price point.

When I was 15. I was "mopar rules!" "Mopar or no car!". Truth was I didn't know ****. I just thought they were badass. (I was right about that)
Now as an adult with 30 years of weekends under my belt with my cars I have a more objective point of view.
Chrysler did many good things. Two additional 1/4 20 screws per valve cover! I love it! The timing cover on an LA series engine looks like it's part of a machine and not something to bake a cake in! Love it!
There is much good. I respect your opinion. I'm still learning.

No, you have not offended me but maybe you have annoyed me a little.

You are a relatively new member and you seem to provide a lot of comments increasingly that I do not find supportable, so I am just trying to ascertain where these opinions are coming from when seemingly innacurate - thats all. I would just suggest you might want to consider more carefully whether what you are saying is really accurate or useful.

For example, if you think a body on frame design is superior to a unibody (partial or otherwise) why not research the topic to find out what the experts say about the two approaches and then make some comment if it is valid (not just offer your opinion that is inaccurate from everything I have read on the subject and you admit you know nothing about)? After researching the topic, and if you find any mass market company that supports using a body on frame design these days, please point even one out by name. Otherwise, why make a comment with exclamation points for your view when it is not true given today's realities and the list of reasons I have provided?

Body strength is vital to protecting the driver/occupants from collisions along with attendant crumple zones and air bags to absorb the energy. Unibody achieves that vital requirement that no body/frame vehicle is capable of. Here is just one video showing the importance of strength and protecting the driver/occupants from intrusion (and note the unibody Malibu is much smaller and lighter than the body on frame 1959 Chevrolet so sheer mass does not win the day if not done right).



The world is increasingly flooded with misinformation and with the internet everyone has a voice, so finding truth out about anything anymore is a real problem. And conspiracy theories are rampant and carried over a wide range and they ultimately affect the foundation of our world. If anything bothers me it is that propensity for everyone to make a comment when not really informed. Its not helpful and just wastes our time for what reason? If you say you know nothing about safety then why postulate what you believe to be true when no one I know of will agree? How is that helpful?

You certainly have it right in my opinion concerning fuselage cars for example in terms of their attributes and also the desirabiliy of the B bodies in terms of their styling too. We can agree on that.

Also, don't interpret the fact that our disagree symbol on this site is in red, as it is designed to engender controversy/conflict on the site to increase its interest level and therefore membership/advertising income, not to instill good dialog. Don't see red as conflict but rather as a differing opinion, thats all, and things will go smoother for you. And it helps to have a thick skin around here too - that is a reality.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Take a full framed car frame and jack up one corner, I would say measure the deflection by X measurements, but you can see it with your eyes. Frames tie the components together they do not lock them in place, that is their designed job. Watch a fully loaded semi pull out from a red light. The frame does not hold the tractor ridged, it flexes body on frame cars do the same thing.

 

[Carmine]

But Delorean did hit on stub frame versus frame and that was specifically a factory improvement.
GM did not do it to the mid and fullsize cars for a reason. They converted the lines when they got smaller. Hudsons were unibody in the 50's it was not new. The first big brand cars to go frameless were the lowest markets. The cheapest cars.
Not the top market cars.
He predicted the future of front wheel drive as standard. Process improvement.

@Rustyrodknocker

Are you familiar with the expression "knows enough to be dangerous"? I'm afraid that came to mind after reading some of your postings. You're not entirely uninformed, but let me add a few things to the statement you made.

Stub/sub frames are [assembly] process improvements because they allow complicated and often differing mechanical components to be sub-assembled off the main assembly line where the physical space doesn't exist to keep 3-4 springs of different rates, 2-3 different braking packages, 2 different sway bars, etc. The sub-assemblies (now tied together on a stub frame) are sequenced to the main assembly line, arriving at just the right moment. This was a use of computing power long before they were commonplace elsewhere. However, this process improvement doesn't diminish the structural superiority of a unitized body. It's simply an adaptation.

You (and Delorean I suppose) point out that smaller cars were the first to adopt unitized bodies, which is somewhat true. Although Chrysler Corporation liked to brag about unitized bodies in 1960 (both standard-size and compact), the Imperial held onto full-frame construction. This wasn't done because it was a superior technique (although the Imperial frame was likely the strongest in the industry), it was done because unitized construction requires very expensive engineering and tooling. Imperials were such low-volume sellers that traditional 3-year body redesigns could never be justified. That's why so many of the most expensive structures in the cowl area carried on from 1957 to 1966. But why didn't Cadillac, which had justifiable volume, remain Body-On-Frame (for some models) into the 1990s? Because it's also easier to differentiate styling with BOF construction and Cadillac DID share some unseen panels and wheelbase with other GM brands. Couple that with virtually no need for higher fuel economy (lower weight) or sharper handling and you have another reason the technique stayed around. Conversely, a compact car needs to be lighter, so there is no reason to consider a frame. By the time everyone was building compacts, (1960) the unitized science was pretty nailed down.

By the 1980s, the large RWD sedan market was so much smaller that GM/Lincoln were in the same boat as Imperial 25 years earlier... Not cost effective to update, so BOF kept going into the 2000s on chassis last redesigned in the 70s.

And now they're gone and trucks have taken their place. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[brougham brummel]

Yeah,but would a Yugo fair well against a 73 Imperial?? Heh.Just kidding.B.B

 

[Carmine]

Yeah,but would a Yugo fair well against a 73 Imperial?? Heh.Just kidding.B.B

Although I am basically agreeing with @saforwardlook, I hate that '59 Chevy "ringer". Those things were known for unsafe frames even in their day. You might hate me, but if I were rich with money (and time) to burn, I'd re-run that test with a rust free Mopar just to shut-up everyone who posts that clip as "evidence".

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Although Chrysler Corporation liked to brag about unitized bodies in 1960

Actually Chrysler had unitized with the Chrysler Airflow in the '30s. Styling and lack of full frame, hurt the car sales wise, much the same as the misinformation listed earlier. Those cars were way out ahead of everything else. Now strong unitized construction and curved egg shapes are all you see on the roads. Only took the rest of the manufacturer's and John Q Public 70 years to catch up.

 

[Rustyrodknocker]

Guys, I appreciate the feedback and look forward to continuing the conversation if this is the place.

This conversation that began about 50 year old Mopars has evolved to allegations of spreading misinformation that is contributing to rampant conspiracy theories that ultimately undermine the foundation of the world.
That alone, however worthy, is more than I will have time for during the week.
That is unless there in a final ruling to confirm the allegation concerning my qualification to speak on these matters.
If I am deemed unfit, there would be no point in continuing.

Or if I just need to stfu and not trample on this thread any longer. I can respect that.

 

[brougham brummel]

Yeah.Let,s keep it just about cars.Not everybody has the answers but there are those who have the hands on experience and that,s what we need here.Thanks.B.B

 

[HWYCRZR]

Wow, i love the round headlight giant Monte Carlos.Would love one with a 454.B.B

My brother had tan/ yellow. 73 Monte when we were in high school. I don’t know if we ever figured up what the original engine was. We guessed it was a 327. It was under powered for that big car so we bought a wrecked Pontiac Bonneville with a 455 big block with 100k miles for $250 and stuffed it in there. I think it was part mine at that point as I paid 1/2. We had to move the right motor mount back about an inch.
It had hell of a single tire spin. With a 3/4 tank full of fuel it was one of the quicker cars in our small town. I was a junior in high school and he was a senior when we did the swap.
It seemed perfectly normal at that time. He did blow it up the next year in college. I think I loaned him half of the money for the short block and head rebuild. I think the total was less than $700 (1986). With a fresh engine it really moved.

 

[brougham brummel]

Wow.Sounds like fun.B.B

 

[Robert Saigh]

Meanwhile....What about the Jim Gesswein Auction?

 

[garyh]

Meanwhile....What about the Jim Gesswein Auction?

Yes, Lets get back to that !

 

[coco]

Results

VanDerBrink Auctions, LLC Auction Catalog - Amazing MOPAR Collector Cars at Auction Auctions Online | Proxibid

Some bargains and some unexpected results, well for me anyway !

 

[detmatt]

Wow! Part of me is jumping up and down and the other part of me is thinking some of the results are pure B.S..

 

[68PK21 440.6bbl]

.

 

[garyh]

Pretty Healthy prices IMO.

 

[My65cuda]

I couldn't believe some of the prices. The pink 59 dodge at best was a 50k car. The 60 imperial convertible must not be that nice as it stopped around 60