Beautiful Cars & Trucks

[Schmidt Meister]

1972 Chevrolet El Camino. 402 Big-Block V8, GM Turbo Hydra-Matic 400 Trans., 12-bolt Posi Rear.

[Schmidt Meister]

1971 Plymouth Barracuda Hemi 2 Door Hardtop.

[Schmidt Meister]

1963 Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray

[pipedreams]

1970 Ford Capri 3000 GT

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[gwalchmai]

[Schmidt Meister]

I guess it's a matter of opinion whether these tankers were beautiful or not.

The origin of the streamlined tankers – the Texaco Doodlebug.
In the early thirties, the Texas Co embarked on an initiative to modernize its image and its tanker fleet. The innovative and futuristic tank truck that the company subsequently created is popularly known as the Texaco Doodlebug.
Five years before the 1938 Diamond T tank truck was manufactured, the Heil Co, in conjunction with the Diamond T Motor Car Company, worked with Texaco to produce the unmistakable, distinctive Texaco Doodlebug.
Early in the 1930s, a large proportion of the American population was using coal to heat their homes. This was, of course, a very dirty, greasy product to handle and use. So the oil industry was keen to encourage American consumers to change over to oil as the primary home heating fuel.
When considering how best to promote this, Texaco decided to carry out a rebranding program to modernize its image and at the same time, produce a visually desirable, clean tank truck to deliver oil and gasoline.
It is suggested that the company engaged the services of two industrial design firms owned by Walter Dorwin Teague and Norman Bel Geddes to work on the design brief.
The ensuing corporate identity program saw the creation of the Texaco red T-star logo, new service station architectural designs and colour schemes, new white uniform styles and the famous large “TEXACO” block lettering that was affixed to the sides of the streamlined tank trucks.
Howard W Kizer, Superintendent of Automotive Equipment for The Texas Co, was in charge of the Texaco fleet and was apparently keen to build an eye-catching fleet that would not only grab the public’s attention, but also have a sanitary, clean appearance. The Texaco Doodlebug certainly delivered on both counts.
Norman Bel Geddes and his team worked with Howard W. Kizer and C.A.Pierce, Chief Engineer for Diamond T, to come up with the radical, streamlined design.
The Heil Co then constructed the Texaco Doodlebug in conjunction with The Texas Co and the Diamond T Motor Car Co.
The unique and futuristic tank truck featured at The Chicago World’s Fair which ran from 1933 to 1934 to celebrate the city’s centennial.
The Doodlebug Details.
• The Heil Co constructed the streamlined tank body on a Diamond T chassis
•A Hercules six-cylinder engine was mounted at the rear of the tanker
•A top section of the tail housing could be opened to enable a mechanic to stand while he worked and have full access to the engine
•The entire tail section could be removed if necessary to allow the removal of the engine
•The driving compartment at the front was enclosed in double curved plate glass and gave the driver a 180 degree field of vision
•The curved windshield wouldn’t be used in mass production until the release of the 1957 Chrysler Imperial
• There were no running boards, hood, cowl or fenders
• The wheelbase was 140″, total length was 26’, total width was 92″, height at only 72″ was only 4″ taller than a 1934 Ford sedan
• The short wheelbase, with the cab well forward and the engine at the back, produced a weight distribution ratio of 55% on the front axle and 45% on the rear
• Heil installed a microphone at the rear in the engine compartment and a speaker in the cab so that the driver could hear the engine and know when to change gears
• The tank truck had a 1500 gallon fuel capacity
There were only six ‘known’ Texaco Doodlebugs ever produced. None of them survived. Most likely scrapped in latter years like so many of the later streamlined tankers.

1934 Heil Co. Texaco Doodlebug Tanker Truck - 1 - 6

1934 BAP (British Australian Petroleum Company) Doodlebug - Australia - 7 & 8

00 1935 White Gilmore Streamliner Tanker Truck - 9

[railfancwb]

Some nice pictures and thumbnail descriptions of 31 classic vehicles. Each car is accompanied with a Bible verse and a devotional. 

[railfancwb]

19 hours ago, railfancwb said:

Some nice pictures and thumbnail descriptions of 31 classic vehicles. Each car is accompanied with a Bible verse and a devotional. 

An allegation near the end of the book suggested the Big Three -  Ford, General Motors, Chrysler - forced the little players such as Packard, Studebaker, Hudson, et.al. out of business. Rather than making more room for themselves they got Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes, VW and several other offshore companies coming in and building factories in the States. Oops

[Borg warner]

51 minutes ago, railfancwb said:

An allegation near the end of the book suggested the Big Three -  Ford, General Motors, Chrysler - forced the little players such as Packard, Studebaker, Hudson, et.al. out of business. Rather than making more room for themselves they got Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes, VW and several other offshore companies coming in and building factories in the States. Oops

Here's hoping that 65 mustang was  fastback. the fastback Mustangs were always the best looking.

[GT4494]

25 minutes ago, Borg warner said:

Here's hoping that 65 mustang was  fastback. the fastback Mustangs were always the best looking.

Sorry but iIMHO nothing can beat a convertible. 

 

[Schmidt Meister]

1937 Chevrolet Master Deluxe Sedan - 355 V8 - Auto

[Borg warner]

5 hours ago, GT4494 said:

Sorry but iIMHO nothing can beat a convertible. 

 

You and I will have to agree to disagree. 

On the other hand, of we were talking about Jaguar XKE's, I'd agree that the convertible was better looking.

[DAKA]

7 hours ago, Borg warner said:

You and I will have to agree to disagree. 

On the other hand, of we were talking about Jaguar XKE's, I'd agree that the convertible was better looking.

True

Only certain cars are better looking in convertibles   ie:  1963 Corvette sting ray Split window (coupe, better looking that the convertible...IMHO, bu(t I'd rather have the conv)

[janice6]

On 2/28/2023 at 4:50 PM, GT4494 said:

Sorry but iIMHO nothing can beat a convertible. 

 

I owned a '66' Convertible in Artic White with Red interior.  It was interesting.  I had also many notchback coupes of various years.  Driving the the convertible over a hump in the road with RR tracks crossing would cause the steering wheel to move forward and the drivers seat to move backwards as the body flexed through the driver and passenger seats.  Without the roof for strength the company put 1/4 inch steel square plates bolted to the unitized body to strengthen it but only somewhat.

If I jacked the car up I had to open the doors first so the body would jam the doors to the frame and chip the paint.

However!  I loved that car!

[jmohme]

On 2/28/2023 at 4:50 PM, GT4494 said:

Sorry but iIMHO nothing can beat a convertible. 

 

I hate convertibles.  Top down most are ok as long as the design cleanly stows the top out of sight instead of looking like a stack of potato sacks piled behind the back seat.

Top up, they are all awful, with the exception of retractable hard tops. Those rock!

[tous]

32 minutes ago, jmohme said:

I hate convertibles.  Top down most are ok as long as the design cleanly stows the top out of sight instead of looking like a stack of potato sacks piled behind the back seat.

Top up, they are all awful, with the exception of retractable hard tops. Those rock!

Now you know why the British hate you.

 

[Borg warner]

32 minutes ago, jmohme said:

I hate convertibles.  Top down most are ok as long as the design cleanly stows the top out of sight instead of looking like a stack of potato sacks piled behind the back seat.

Top up, they are all awful, with the exception of retractable hard tops. Those rock!

I have a jeep wrangler with a hardtop but with removable sections over the drivers an passenger seat. It's the perfect convertible.  With the rear seat removed, there's more storage space and I can keep the tops in there in case it rains.  and  the door frames come all the way to the top and with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, and with the high ground clearance, nobody can get into the vehicle.

And as far as convertibles making the body less rigid, the jeep has a complete roll cage. I've always wanted a convertible but now I have something just as good and I don't have to buy an new top every 3 or 4 years

[pipedreams]

[railfancwb]

12 hours ago, janice6 said:

I owned a '66' Convertible in Artic White with Red interior.  It was interesting.  I had also many notchback coupes of various years.  Driving the the convertible over a hump in the road with RR tracks crossing would cause the steering wheel to move forward and the drivers seat to move backwards as the body flexed through the driver and passenger seats.  Without the roof for strength the company put 1/4 inch steel square plates bolted to the unitized body to strengthen it but only somewhat.

If I jacked the car up I had to open the doors first so the body would jam the doors to the frame and chip the paint.

However!  I loved that car!

Had a ‘68 Pontiac Firebird convertible with similar afflictions. Maybe most annoying was that the plastic back window needed to be replaced annually. Wife and children loved that car. I didn’t. 

[jmohme]

10 hours ago, Borg warner said:

I have a jeep wrangler with a hardtop but with removable sections over the drivers an passenger seat. It's the perfect convertible.  With the rear seat removed, there's more storage space and I can keep the tops in there in case it rains.  and  the door frames come all the way to the top and with the windows rolled up and the doors locked, and with the high ground clearance, nobody can get into the vehicle.

And as far as convertibles making the body less rigid, the jeep has a complete roll cage. I've always wanted a convertible but now I have something just as good and I don't have to buy an new top every 3 or 4 years

Jeep is one of the exceptions. Removeable hard top or soft top. Both look like they belong on a jeep.

 

As to the rigidity issue with convertibles, I know for a fact that convertibles from the earlier years had quite a bit of body reinforcement and I never experienced any issues with the ones that came into our shop. I suspect that still holds true on later model convertibles.

On the other side of that coin, there were a LOT of convertibles that were home brewed, or done in second rate body shops. Those were the ones that and severe body flex issues. Some to the point of being unsafe.

[railfancwb]

1 minute ago, jmohme said:

Jeep is one of the exceptions. Removeable hard top or soft top. Both look like they belong on a jeep.

 

As to the rigidity issue with convertibles, I know for a fact that convertibles from the earlier years had quite a bit of body reinforcement and I never experienced any issues with the ones that came into our shop. I suspect that still holds true on later model convertibles.

On the other side of that coin, there were a LOT of convertibles that were home brewed, or done in second rate body shops. Those were the ones that and severe body flex issues. Some to the point of being unsafe.

When Detroit stopped manufacturing convertibles and subbing the jobs out to others, I suspect rigidity issues increased. Maybe more so with unibody construction. 

[jmohme]

5 minutes ago, railfancwb said:

When Detroit stopped manufacturing convertibles and subbing the jobs out to others, I suspect rigidity issues increased. Maybe more so with unibody construction. 

That would make sense. 

I got out of the automotive industry long before that, so am not that knowledgeable about the newer rag tops.

 

[Borg warner]

10 hours ago, jmohme said:

Jeep is one of the exceptions. Removeable hard top or soft top. Both look like they belong on a jeep.

 

As to the rigidity issue with convertibles, I know for a fact that convertibles from the earlier years had quite a bit of body reinforcement and I never experienced any issues with the ones that came into our shop. I suspect that still holds true on later model convertibles.

On the other side of that coin, there were a LOT of convertibles that were home brewed, or done in second rate body shops. Those were the ones that and severe body flex issues. Some to the point of being unsafe.

I had a removable Hardtop on a 70's Dodge Ramcharger and have one on my 2007 Wrangler but I never removed them because I could never find 4 young men who were as strong as I used to be to help me lift the tops off after they were unbolted and nowhere to store them while they were off. Some summer day maybe I'll take the hard top off my Jeep along with the doors and enter it into a 4rt of July parade and then put it back on before it rains.

Except there I live, it's not uncommon for it to rain in the 4rth of July. also, as far as homemade convertibles, I had a couple of VW bugs that were beaters that I was tempted do sawzall the roofs off when I lived in Southern Cal. and only drive them in the summer. I guess I could have welded the doors shut and just climbed in an out if body flex and door fit became a problem.