Lee
Senior Member
Posts: 1,899
|
Post by Lee on May 22, 2005 23:06:10 GMT 1
An interesting question was asked as to why the Cutter's are larger than the Stoney Mountain vehicles. The answer is in the history of the vehicles themselves. Early on in automobile manufacturing cars that the average person drove were small. It wasn't until the early fiftys that automobiles start to grow in length and width reaching the max in the early sixtys The American automobile from the mid fiftys through the mid sixtys grew reaching such lengths and widths that in some states clearance lights were required. Cities had to rethink parking spaces. And forget trying to putting your new car in the old garage.. It just wouldn't fit. In other words, cars of the late fifties are just plain larger than the cars of the early fifties.
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on May 23, 2005 0:22:49 GMT 1
Dear Sirs:
And full-size cars have different meaning for different years. Under the EPA specifcations, what used to be mid-size in the 1970's now is considered full size. Who can believe,as an example, that the 1975 Dodge Coronet (such as my station wagon) was considered a mid size car when that was new? Christian stated that a Taurus is not a mid sized vehicle, but in the 1970's,it would be (or classify,perhaps,as a compact). And of course, there are no cars in the road right now as the 122 inch wheelbase Dodge Monaco (that was a full size car when new).
|
|
|
Post by only87 on May 23, 2005 0:46:55 GMT 1
I know this is not exactly the place for my question, but I didn't want to open an extra thread for the short question. What be the lenght of a '65 Valiant Station Wagon. I have seen a Cereal model today that was so amazingly good that it hurts. The seller of this one had also a Jaguar E of this series which had about the same size as the Wiking piece, the Valiant was 6 cm long. So I wonder how close t is to our scale. If that is close enough, I really would think about buying it. Anyway, what was the '61 Valiant considered as in size categories? Having the Heljan models here, its size is noticeable smaller than the Dart for example and also compared to all the other American cars I have. So was the Valiant considered as a small car back then?
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on May 23, 2005 1:07:44 GMT 1
Dear only87:
If I am not wrong, the Valiant would be considered a compact car,as it was the Ford Falcon. Measurements of the real item coming up (in inches):
Wheelbase,106.5 inches; lenght, 183.7 inches. That was in the Compact area, because the Full Sized ones measured in the 180/close to 200 inch in lenght. In 1/87, the wheelbase equals 1.23 inches (3 centimeters?) and the lenght will be 2.11 inches (close to 5.5 centimeters). This data is for the 1961 version. The data for the 1965 is: wheelbase, 106 inches; lenght of the wagon, 188.8 inches. In 1/87, its lenght should be 2.2 inches; this is close to six centimeters.
I hope that this helps,
Nick K
Oh,by the way: if you get the Valiant,can I see pictures and know who's the manufacturer? I happen to have some of these articles in my collection.
|
|
|
Post by DavidJohnson on May 27, 2005 3:53:49 GMT 1
I was the member who asked Lee the interesting question about vehicle size. The question pertained to the Cutter's Buick, Oldsmobile, and Mercury which are larger than many 1950's autos in my collection.
What ensued was a very informative dialogue with Lee, Sylvain, Jerry, and myself. These models are larger because the prototypes in fact are larger. In our discussion of measurements these Cutter's vehicles (and also the 1950 Chevrolet) were found to agree VERY close to prototype dimensions. Knowing this increases my appreciation and enjoyment of the models.
As this thread is about vehicle size, I think it is of interest to provide dimensions of a few prototype vehicles to illustrate size trends over time and the difference between "everyman" makes and the more upscale makes such as Buick, Olds, and Mercury.
1950 Chevrolet (Collectible Automobile, june 1989) WB 115" 292 cm L 197" 500 cm W 74" 188 cm H 65 7/8 " 167 cm wt 3125 lbs 1418 kg
1950 Ford (CA, june 1989) WB 114 L 197 W 71.7 H 64.7 wt 3033 lbs
1950 Plymouth (CA, june 1989) WB 118.5 L 191.5 W 71 7/16 H 65.5 wt 3079
1955 Buick Roadmaster (from Lee) WB 127" 323 cm L 215.9" 548 cm W 80" 203 cm H 64.4 163.6 cm
1956 Buick Century (CA Feb 1993) WB 122 L 205.1 wt 3775 Note that Century and Special were not as long as the Roadmaster
1957 Mercury (from Sylvain, in cm) L 211 " 537 cm W 79.5 " 202 cm
1960 Ford Galaxie (CA Feb 1993) WB 119 L 213.6 W 81.5 H 55
Sorry about all of the inch units. I'll convert the rest to cm later when I have time.
|
|
Lee
Senior Member
Posts: 1,899
|
Post by Lee on May 27, 2005 4:03:35 GMT 1
Here is a scale calculater thanks to 1/87 Vehicle Club that you can download into your computer. www.1-87vehicles.org/scalecalc.phpDoes anyone know of a conversion program to change inches into centimeters?
|
|
|
Post by DavidJohnson on May 27, 2005 4:17:13 GMT 1
I dont have a program, but here are the conversion factors when using a calculator.
Multiply inches x 2.54 to convert to centimeters Multiply lbs x 0.4536 to convert to kilograms
Divide centimeters by 2.54 to convert to inches. Divide kilograms by 0.4536 to convert to lbs.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvain on May 27, 2005 8:45:05 GMT 1
And multiply feet x 30,48 to convert to centimeters too.
As I was saying to Lee, Jerry and Dave, I have a small english book of 1957, "The Observer's book of Automobiles", about automobile history and present (of 1957). It describes all brands of this year, from Abarth to Zundapp (really all brands), with pictures, and indicates specifications (including length and width) of a few models for each company. So if someoone is looking for length and size of a 1957 car, I'm quite sure to have it.
|
|
|
Post by cfesmire on May 27, 2005 13:33:03 GMT 1
I'll have to take issue however with the statement that the U.S. Auto in geberal was bigger in the mid to late 50's than in any other time. There are exampoles of absolutely huge cars in the 20's (i.e. Marmon touring) and in the 40's there were some real beasts ('49 Plymouth and Hudson are personal acquaintances). These cars were not only just bigger but more massive in terms of weight as well. I am only mentioning this from personal experience in standing next to and driving these cars but if someone has figures to prove me wrong I welcome the info.
|
|
skunk
87thScale addict
5th B-day
Posts: 2,762
|
Post by skunk on May 27, 2005 19:54:52 GMT 1
I dont have a program, but here are the conversion factors when using a calculator. Multiply inches x 2.54 to convert to centimeters Multiply lbs x 0.4536 to convert to kilograms Divide centimeters by 2.54 to convert to inches. Divide kilograms by 0.4536 to convert to lbs. And one furlong equals 201.168 metres - this means that the length of the 1955 Buick Roadmaster was a mere 0.02724 furlongs. Also, it seems that cars are currently swelling to previously unimagined sizes; a Ford Excursion might even dwarf the Marmons and Pierce-Arrows of yore. Of course, I know which one I'd rather see in my garage, or rather outside of it, since none of those behemoths will fit in any normal garage.
|
|
Lee
Senior Member
Posts: 1,899
|
Post by Lee on May 28, 2005 2:49:59 GMT 1
I'll have to take issue however with the statement that the U.S. Auto in geberal was bigger in the mid to late 50's than in any other time. There are examples of absolutely huge cars in the 20's (i.e. Marmon touring) and in the 40's there were some real beasts ('49 Plymouth and Hudson are personal acquaintances). These cars were not only just bigger but more massive in terms of weight as well. I am only mentioning this from personal experience in standing next to and driving these cars but if someone has figures to prove me wrong I welcome the info. Chester, I quit agree with your statement that there was some hugh cars built earlier, but, my statement said the average, not the exception. Take a look at home garages built in the 20's. They were built to handle the average car of the times. No way would many of the late 50's and 60's cars fit in them.
|
|
stanhas87
87thScale addict
1978 Dodge Monaco CHP
Posts: 4,906
|
Post by stanhas87 on May 28, 2005 18:07:14 GMT 1
Dear Sylvain:
I seem to have that 1957 book too ( not in so good condition,but still) and at my walkings at libraries made me discover a series of yearly books on cars from the 1950's which is similar to the book you just described.
Nick K
Dear Sirs:
I also have two series of books that deal with american cars (and their measurements) and two series of books which deals with import cars and their dimensions one of which is published by Guiness and reports on cars from the 1920's on. CA is also an excellent reference. From the libraries,besides the series from the cars of the 1950's I just mentioned above, there is the 1962-1985 series of books from World Cars published by the Italian Auto Club and I heard of the German publisher who may still offering books as such and been around for a while,too.
|
|