Learn me DIY convertible

In reply to stuart in mn:

I'm don't mean to say don't do it, I'm just saying that driving/riding in any car is a calculated risk and that risk starts to rise quite a bit as the model year counts down from ~1990.

stuart in mn wrote: What a bunch of spoilsports. Guess I better haul my '61 Bonneville to the junkyard before it kills me.

Not at all. If I lived outside of an idiot driver zone (Orlando), I'd consider putting my kids in a classic from time-to-time. However, here pretty much every time I get in the car I have to negotiate around another example of knuckleheads that can't avoid hitting one another.

You'll have to make your own old car risk vs reward decision but I will weigh in on the homemade convertible concept. The concern I have is that except in very rare occasions where a ton of time and money was spent to do it well a coupe or sedan with the roof lopped off is going to be worth dramatically less than if it were unmodified.

My four year old nephew was out cruising in the '66 Caddy today, actually. His request. He's also been upside down in his father's rock crawler and out on parade laps in a Miata So that's where I stand on risk vs reward - there's a time and place. Meanwhile, he gets ferried to daycare in a 2015 F150.

The car would be a weekend cruiser probably generally more on back roads than highway when possible because why cruise on 95.

Something to take the family out and share the love of cars since building a race car is for me but a family cruiser can be enjoyed by the family.

I wouldn't want to use anything of value to start a chopped off convertible with but the body work is a valid point on making it look decent. I learned that in not properly chopping the top on my Morris and a friend saving the cosmetics in his reassembly.

One option I am considering is a $500 1939 Commander (most of the body and chassis) that a friend has sitting in his yard, he couldn't bear to see it go to the scrap yard so he has had it for a couple years now.

If I went that route there would probably be a newer chassis underneath for drivetrain and suspension.

I will need to do some more googling to see the monstrocities that people have made to know what not to do. I want something that looks respectable, not trying to make people think it's the original convertible but looks matter for a cruiser.

My problem with this is that I can't think of very many cars that can have their roofs cut off and end up looking presentable without some very serious metal work.

BUT I do have another idea.

I think you could copy this soft top, retain a lot more of the cars structure, have less work for yourself, and with the windows down and the top back, I don't see how the experience would be much different than a full convertible.

patgizz wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Yep, old cars flat suck when it comes to crash protection. Sorry to be a pig, but look at it this way...there are women that carry their weight in all the right places, then there are women that carry it in all the WRONG places. Guess which car is a '50s barge is and which a '17 Accord is, even though their weights are fairly similar. I'd rather have a wreck in a Toyota Yaris than a '60 Chrysler.

the 50's car definitely has the weight in all the right places. that chrome is gorgeous. i'll take the style and the risk that i'm taking something that old and unsafe out for a cruise once a week and strap my kids in the back. we're not commuting with them at peak traffic hours every day, we're going out for dinner after most people are home and off the road. i don't do the "will someone please think of the children" argument.

Without a doubt from a looks perspective the '50s cars are gorgeous, I said it earlier in the thread. When I watch Barrett Jackson or Meceum, my favorite cars are from 1900 to 1960. I yawn at the sight of another '69 Mustang. But from the perspective of being safe, not a chance.

To me, it's really not a "won't someone please think of the children" thing, as much as it is a calculated risk I'm not willing to take. Having seen the things I have, my perspective is different I guess. It's not commuting at peak rush hour traffic that's most dangerous. Those accidents happen, but they're typically more minor. The big, nasty, fatalities I see are in "cruising" type areas. Someone going down a country road at 50mph when another car turns left in front of them, etc...

I'll put my kids in a go kart all day long. When they're old enough I'd be in 100% support of them racing in LeMons or SCCA or whatever. But old cars are a risk I'm not willing to take. Between the fact that they offer no crash protection, are on roads no longer designed for them, with cars that will cut through classics like a hot knife through butter, and I'll pass.

In reply to Klayfish:

I am curious what you do that drives such the concern about the safety of classics. Yes there is an internet added risk, as there is in a convertible over a sedan or would be on a motorcycle.

Are you a trans doctor, EMT, someone who deals with totalled cars regularly?

From my perspective yes there is an added risk but given the limited time/mileage we would use it yearly and as an abbility to do something as a family that ties in my car passion I think the risk is worthwhile. Especially if the body is on a newer frame (because why not if I am making a convertible use an updated drivetrain and chassis)

I work in insurance. I've seen literally hundreds of thousands of accidents.

Old cars simply are significantly more dangerous. They just are. That doesn't mean they should be banned from the roads, or people shouldn't drive them, or anything like that. If it's a risk you're willing to take, then do it. I'm not taking that chance, but that's just my own decision.

Time and a place, as Keith said. And the two go hand in hand. In Chicagoland? There is nearly no time appropriate in this place to ride in a car without a crumple zone and collapsable steering column.

If I still lived in central Illinois, I probably would have a classic car though. But here, I can't escape the traffic.

As someone who likes to drive around in old British cars designed with minimal (if any) thought towards crash protection, the idea of not driving a big American car due to safety concerns is amusing.

To me, the risk is mitigated simply by not driving the cars very often. And I do a lot of road cycling, so my level of personal safety is somewhat skewed towards DGAF.

If it me, then I can do what I want. But I'm not putting my grandson in any old POS just so I can show off. Around here you can be doing everything right and some idiot will run a light or stop sign and kill you. That somebody won't be my grandson because I put him in an old POS.

In a modern vehicle, you can walk away from the same accident that will kill you in a old car. Hell, skip the child seats and seatbelts, too. Government shouldn't tell us what to do, right.

I saw a video of the aftermath of a Lexus ls400 that suddenly went full throttle up an embankment into a cars and coffee type gathering and jumped though the passenger side door of a 60s GM hard top, out the drivers side and hit the car parked next to it. With how crowded everything is now and how little people pay attention to driving I probably wouldn't drive a car like that anymore. I do think a real convertible is a way better choice than buying a sedan and flailing around with a plasma cutter, parts will cost the same for both, and the real convertible will actually have some value when you sell it.

In reply to Tk8398:

I remember those pictures. From I remember it was also a bit of a fluke situation where the Lexus was airborne when it hit the GM, going over the passenger side door as much as through it. When it hit the driver's door, there is less to hold the door closed (the catch), so it would rip open easier. The latter would be true for essentially any car.

Klayfish said: Between the fact that they offer no crash protection, are on roads no longer designed for them, with cars that will cut through classics like a hot knife through butter, and I'll pass.

I don't want to come off argumentative,but it might sound that way because I'm not great with words. But this specific line is where it may be more location based than anything.

Locally to me, all of the roads are still using the same layouts, signs, and even markings that they had when the old cars were new. It's actually a huge pain in the ass in a more modern car trying to stay under a 45mph speed limit on what is for all intents and purposes a highway, and everything suffers with the land mine fields we call roads around here.

It is almost it's own topic, but at least locally to me, because I can't speak for the whole country, we need to bring our roads and laws up to modern standards like our cars have been. Our speed limits, street signs, etc haven't really been touched since the 60s, while cars have obviously evolved in all aspects.

That's not to say speed limits haven't changed. The turnpike went up to 70 last year. But they have been getting dropped in more areas in part because of accidents. Not car on car accidents, but idiot teenagers dressed in black to busy on their phones to realize they're walking down the middle of a road in the middle of the night and that the approaching glow and noise is a car kind of accident. So the speed limit goes down, and traffic enforcement jumps up, because someone forgot to teach kids not to walk in the middle of the road in the middle of the night and to get out of the way of cars. The only car feature that could help then is airbag bumpers and I don't see anyone making those currently.

Now that I've gone completely of topic to complain mostly about one road that used to be 50 that is now 35 because while mommy thought little Johnny was in bed, he was out partying with his friends and played chicken with a car, I'll wrap up by saying I completely forgot the original point of this post.

Oh, there's the point. Better driver training and better pedestrian training/awareness would help all aspects of motoring, regardless of age of the vehicle or "safety"features or nannies available.