More Barn Find Fun!

[drrotor]

Here's the one picture I have of the '63 Daytona Convertible I rescued from a 40-year sleep in a barn. Parked in running condition in 1976, has around 78,000 actual miles. i bought it including a complete, loaded, and very rusty 1963 Cruiser-- 289, A/T, P.Steering, 331 Twin Traction, etc. I will bring it home after I build a shed for it. Fun times!

[Hallabutt]

Kenny,

Is that Walt Thompson's car?

[sals54]

Looks like its time to yank that boat anchor outa that Convert and transplant the 289. Now you'll have a real drivers car. Congrats

[Hallabutt]

Kenny,

No need to respond, I know the cars very well. Known Walt for over forty years, and the cars as well. I guess that all things have to come to an end, just glad that there is someone willing to do something with some of his exceptional stash of cars.-Bill

[drrotor]

Looks like its time to yank that boat anchor outa that Convert and transplant the 289. Now you'll have a real drivers car. Congrats

Say-- do any of you know-- do the 6 and V8 cars share the same springs? And if not, what might be the results of installing the 289 and A/T from the Cruiser on the 6 cyl. springs?

[thunderations]

Change the suspension, rear end and brakes over too.

Say-- do any of you know-- do the 6 and V8 cars share the same springs? And if not, what might be the results of installing the 289 and A/T from the Cruiser on the 6 cyl. springs?

[TWChamp]

Say-- do any of you know-- do the 6 and V8 cars share the same springs? And if not, what might be the results of installing the 289 and A/T from the Cruiser on the 6 cyl. springs?

I'd sure keep a nice clean low mileage convertible all original. Nothing wrong with a six.

[Commander Eddie]

I agree with TWChamp. I had a 62 sedan with a six and it ran just fine. The lighter engine made steering with no power steering a breeze. Got decent gas mileage as well. A lot less work for you to keep it stock.

[Bullet]

Agree on keeping the 6 cyl. I had a 63 Cruiser with auto, ran great and great gas mileage. Took that car everywhere. Also had a 6 64 convertible, on the registry, that was a 6 with 3spd. That one needed the OD.

Mark

[sals54]

I'll be the naysayer... That 6 is gonna cause nothing but grief for you. You'll spend as much or more on the rebuild and what'll you get? Low power, mediocre gas mileage, 6 cylinder brakes and p*ss poor acceleration. At least with the 289 you'll have the torque you need to get that car up and going down the road. Chirping the tires as you jump on it while ramping onto the freeway is an added bonus. And the fun part is... you'll be getting comparable gas mileage all the while. All the other parts from that rusted out Cruiser will bolt right into the Convert. Front springs, rear end, brakes, radiator etc. And since most of it will need some freshening up anyway, you may as well put in the good stuff.
And just for giggles, go out for a drive in somebody's 6 cylinder Lark and someone else's 289 Lark and see the difference for yourself. I'll bet 10 bucks the 289 will make you smile, while the 6 will make you wish you were still driving the 289.
Don't cheat yourself out of building the car for yourself, not for some other guy 20 years from now who's lamenting the fact that its missing its original engine. Oh, brother.

[drrotor]

Kenny,

Is that Walt Thompson's car?

Yes

[drrotor]

I'll be the naysayer... That 6 is gonna cause nothing but grief for you. You'll spend as much or more on the rebuild and what'll you get? Low power, mediocre gas mileage, 6 cylinder brakes and p*ss poor acceleration. At least with the 289 you'll have the torque you need to get that car up and going down the road. Chirping the tires as you jump on it while ramping onto the freeway is an added bonus. And the fun part is... you'll be getting comparable gas mileage all the while. All the other parts from that rusted out Cruiser will bolt right into the Convert. Front springs, rear end, brakes, radiator etc. And since most of it will need some freshening up anyway, you may as well put in the good stuff.
And just for giggles, go out for a drive in somebody's 6 cylinder Lark and someone else's 289 Lark and see the difference for yourself. I'll bet 10 bucks the 289 will make you smile, while the 6 will make you wish you were still driving the 289.
Don't cheat yourself out of building the car for yourself, not for some other guy 20 years from now who's lamenting the fact that its missing its original engine. Oh, brother.

Well, I do have some experience in this area. My Step-Son had a '64 Wagonaire with a 6/stick, no power steering. I have a '64 Daytona 289 w/ power steering. The Daytona just feels more polished, capable, and smooth. And of course much more powerful.
The 6 is OK and all, but two factors: I happen to know this convertible has a weak transmission that needs repair anyway, and besides, I have a COMPLETE parts car with all the good bits... also, if you look on Hagerty' s value guide, they knock the car 20% for being a 6 cylinder.
So-- I'm back to my original question, which is: does anyone know how the car sits and rides with a V8 on 6 cyl. front springs?

[sals54]

As far as the 6 cyl springs go... I originally put a V8 in my 54 Coupe which was a Champion 6. The V8 made the car sit rather low in the front, but I didn't mind that too much. At least for a while. Back in the 70s the "jacked up" look was still the rage.
Decent shocks will help if you keep the 6 cyl springs for now, but it will sit lower and rides softer.
I later put in V8 springs but the car then sat too high. I originally cut one coil out to lower it and was quite happy with that. A spring swap is not too tough anyway.

[jackb]

You can see what old V8 springs look like on 90% of the cars we have and for sale. Some applaud the "rake" ..I see it as a lazy man's resto effort. Now if you were placing old V8 springs in a 6 banger with new suspension rubber etc.... maybe. Forget about not replacing the rubber when you put in new V8 springs...

[nels]

I hate to say it but the convertible was probably parked do to a cracked cylinder head?