We can look at brochures and dealer books and learn what was available for a particular model year, but those won’t provide a complete picture of things as they evolved over the model year. Our Pick of the Day is one of those cars that you won’t find in most literature; that’s because it was a promotional package created by a marketing department early in the calendar year. This 1967 Plymouth Belvedere Silver Special two-door hardtop is listed on ClassicCars.com by a dealer in Elkhart, Indiana.
The Silver Special name has been used by Plymouth since 1958. It was first applied to a mid-year promotion for Plaza two- and four-door sedans to kick sales up a notch. Equipped with whitewall tires, deluxe wheel covers, fender ornaments, and anodized aluminum “Sportone” side trim with a matching metallic silver roof, the Silver Special was a nicely dressed version of Plymouth’s cheapest model.
The Silver Special was revived for 1966, though now applied to the Fury II four-door sedan. The Silver Special was available in five colors (white, light blue, light metallic blue, dark metallic blue, and silver) and included these extras as standard equipment: whitewalls, deluxe upper door moldings, special wheel covers, and a blue vinyl interior.
The Silver Special reappeared for 1967, now based on the Belvedere II two-door hardtop and four-door sedan—again, a specially equipped, specially priced mid-range Plymouth. “It worked before…work it some more,” said the special brochure created for this promotion. There were two packages available: Package A included Buffed Silver paint or any other regular color save Light Tan metallic, a special silver and black vinyl interior, deluxe wheel covers, whitewall tires, and sill moldings; Package B added a special textured vinyl top in a silvery charcoal color. If air conditioning or a 383 four-barrel was ordered, a $50 discount for each was implemented.
You may not have heard of the Silver Special because, other than the special interior, there’s not much that makes it stand out from your typical Belvedere II. Additionally, the Belvedere II was not a performance model, so it’s often modified by enthusiasts, sometimes losing its identity. According to the seller, this Gold metallic 1967 Belvedere Silver Special has what’s “believed to be 21,500 original miles,” adding that it is powered by a “well-built, fuel-injected 360 cubic-inch V8 backed by its 3-speed automatic transmission” that “has been nicely upgraded with Hooker long tube headers, aluminum heads, Edelbrock mild-rise EFI intake manifold, Edelbrock electronic fuel-injection, and aluminum radiator with electric puller fan.” Other features include power front disc brakes, an aftermarket Optimus AM/FM stereo with a cassette player, and more.
Sure, there’s nothing on the outside to show that this Plymouth is more interesting than any other Belvedere out there, but the silver lining is in the cabin. For $34,995, is this Mopar gold?
This 1939 Lincoln-Zephyr coupe is a running-and-driving project that was built into a street rod before the seller’s acquisition in 2015, and it is powered by a 460ci Ford V8 with Holley Sniper EFI and a Billet Specialties Tru Trac serpentine accessory drive. The engine is backed by a four-speed automatic transmission and a 9” rear end, and the car rides on an Air Ride Technologies air suspension, a Scotts Hotrods independent front assembly, a triangulated four-link rear setup, and 15” wheels. Other highlights include rear-hinged doors, a split bench seat, air conditioning, power windows, a Juliano’s steering wheel, and rack-and-pinion steering. The cabin upholstery is incomplete, and the body is finished in black primer. This modified Zephyr is now offered at no reserve with a Texas title in the seller’s name.
The body was decked, and the doors were shaved and mounted on concealed rear hinges before the car was refinished in black primer. Details include a split rear window, fender skirts, a chrome rear bumper, and dual exhaust outlets. Imperfections around the car can be viewed in the image gallery below.
Chrome 15” wheels are mounted with 225/60 front and 235/60 rear Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. An Air Ride Technologies air suspension has been installed along with a Scotts Hotrods Mustang II-style front assembly and a triangulated four-link rear setup. The car is equipped with rack-and-pinion steering, and braking is handled by front discs and rear drums assisted by a booster mounted below the floor.
A split bench seat is trimmed in brown and black, and the painted dashboard fascia is accented with a burl woodgrain finish. The remainder of the cabin upholstery is incomplete. Insulation material has been applied to the floor and rear bulkhead, and rubber mats line the footwells. An aftermarket air conditioning system, power windows, and three-point seatbelts have also been added.
The Juliano’s banjo-style steering wheel is mounted to a tilt column and sits ahead of an aftermarket 100-mph speedometer with inset auxiliary gauges. The five-digit odometer does not work and currently shows 190 miles. The seller estimates that 500 miles have been added under current ownership.
The 460ci Ford V8 is equipped with a Holley Sniper electronic fuel-injection system, an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold, a Billet Specialties Tru Trac serpentine accessory drive, and a dual exhaust system with AP Emissions Xlerator mufflers. The radiator is cooled by dual electric puller fans.
Power is sent to the rear wheels through a rebuilt AOD four-speed automatic transmission and a 9” rear end.
The car is titled as a 1939 Lincoln using VIN H76467, which the seller is unable to locate on the car. The title carries a “VIN Certification Waived” remark.
For as long as he could remember, Danny Wilson had a soft spot for the clean lines and raw potential of a 1967 Chevy II. It wasn’t just a car it was the one that got away, the kind of machine that had lived in the back of his mind since his twenties. Back then, his first car, a Chevy II Nova, had been a defining part of his youth and though life moved on, the itch for another never faded.
His friend Scott Reynolds knew all about Danny’s obsession. Scott also happened to own a flawless, totally stock ’67 Nova. But there was a catch: Scott had no interest in watching his pride and joy gutted into a full-blown drag car, and he knew Danny’s love of racing might tempt him to do just that. So, for years, the Nova sat in Scott’s garage, just out of reach.
That all changed on a crisp December day in 2018. Without warning, Danny’s wife LeAnn and son Adam led him out to the garage to “check out something.” The door rolled up, and there it was: a gleaming black ’67 Nova. Danny froze, instantly recognizing it.
“Is this Scott’s car?” he asked, half in disbelief.
“No,” LeAnn smiled. “It’s your car.”
It was the ultimate Christmas surprise and came with one important promise to Scott: The Nova would stay true to its street roots.
The car already had a fresh coat of deep black paint and a recently refreshed interior, making it an ideal starting point. Danny’s vision was clearly building a street-ready, show-stopping Nova with modern drivability and just enough muscle to remind people why these cars became legends.
He turned to R&P Machine in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, to make it happen. Out went the stock suspension, replaced by Aldan coilovers, a Classic Performance Products (CPP) front suspension, and a TCI rear torque arm setup. Wilwood 11-inch disc brakes were fitted on all four corners, and a CPP power steering kit replaced the original unit. To make room for the 18×11 Billet Specialties rear wheels, the team installed mini-tubs out back.
Under the hood, the factory 327 got a serious wake-up call. Bored and stroked to 383 cubic inches, the new small-block pushed out a healthy 400 horsepower. A 2004 GM 4L60E transmission with a 3000-stall converter handled the shifting duties, giving the Nova the perfect balance between boulevard cruising and backroad fun.
When the Nova finally returned home, Danny was over the moon. The stance, the rumble, the way it carved through corners it was everything he had imagined, and then some. Today, it’s less about quarter-mile passes and more about evening cruises with his family, windows down, soaking in the nostalgia.
Danny credits the whole build to the support of LeAnn and Adam. “Without them,” he says, “I couldn’t have pulled this off. There’s nothing like loading up everyone in the car and heading out for a cruise. This Nova is part of the family now.”
In August 2025, the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning SuperTruck set a lap time of 6:43.482 on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. Driven by French racing driver Romain Dumas, this performance made the SuperTruck the fastest pickup-style vehicle to ever complete the track and placed it among the top five fastest prototypes in history. What could be cooler? Ford releasing the video footage for the world to see, that’s what.
We’ve mentioned the Ford F-150 Lightning Supertruck EV before when it was first revealed in June 2024, and again in July 2024 when it took first place at the famous International Pikes Peak Hill Climb.
Ford SuperTruck Spec Summary
Ford’s 1,400 HP SuperTruck is a purpose-built, electric race truck designed for the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb, sharing the nameplate with the F-150 Lightning but featuring radically different, one-off bodywork and a three-motor, 1,400-horsepower electric drivetrain. It’s engineered with extensive aerodynamics, including a large rear wing and front splitter, to generate 6,000 pounds of downforce at 150 miles-per-hour, while also employing a custom in-board suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, and Pirelli P-Zero tires on forged magnesium wheels.
As a rolling laboratory, the SuperTruck’s specifications are adaptable, with its motor configuration and horsepower varying for different challenges like the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb and Nürburgring runs. One configuration is said to feature four motors generating 2,200 horsepower. Adjustments are also made to its ride height and downforce depending on the event. The primary goal of the prototype vehicle is to demonstrate Ford’s electric vehicle capabilities and to break records at Pikes Peak, carrying on the legacy of previous EV demonstrators like the SuperVan 4.2.
The Record Nürburgring Run
The SuperTruck prototype achieved a peak speed of 163 miles-per-hour on the Nürburgring’s main straight, which was a testament to its extreme electric performance. It proved to be faster even than the non-production NIO EP9, Xiaomi’s underdog SU7 Ultra Prototype, and even the new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1X. The sub seven-second lap is just one-tenth of a second slower than a Manthey Racing-prepped Porsche 911 GT2 RS, and it beats the 6m 52. the072s time posted by the track-focused Mustang GTD back in May by almost a full 10 seconds. Granted, the Mustang GTD wore road-legal tires for its run, while the SuperTruck ran motorsport-derived slicks.
Get ready for a record-chasing ride on one of the world’s most legendary circuits:
Though Ford doesn’t provide too many details about the run itself, the Blue Oval’s official announcement does state that “every breakthrough goes straight into the trucks you’ll actually drive.”
In August 2025, the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning SuperTruck set a lap time of 6:43.482 on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. Driven by French racing driver Romain Dumas, this performance made the SuperTruck the fastest pickup-style vehicle to ever complete the track and placed it among the top five fastest prototypes in history. What could be cooler? Ford releasing the video footage for the world to see, that’s what.
We’ve mentioned the Ford F-150 Lightning Supertruck EV before when it was first revealed in June 2024, and again in July 2024 when it took first place at the famous International Pikes Peak Hill Climb.
Ford SuperTruck Spec Summary
Ford’s 1,400 HP SuperTruck is a purpose-built, electric race truck designed for the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb, sharing the nameplate with the F-150 Lightning but featuring radically different, one-off bodywork and a three-motor, 1,400-horsepower electric drivetrain. It’s engineered with extensive aerodynamics, including a large rear wing and front splitter, to generate 6,000 pounds of downforce at 150 miles-per-hour, while also employing a custom in-board suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, and Pirelli P-Zero tires on forged magnesium wheels.
As a rolling laboratory, the SuperTruck’s specifications are adaptable, with its motor configuration and horsepower varying for different challenges like the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb and Nürburgring runs. One configuration is said to feature four motors generating 2,200 horsepower. Adjustments are also made to its ride height and downforce depending on the event. The primary goal of the prototype vehicle is to demonstrate Ford’s electric vehicle capabilities and to break records at Pikes Peak, carrying on the legacy of previous EV demonstrators like the SuperVan 4.2.
The Record Nürburgring Run
The SuperTruck prototype achieved a peak speed of 163 miles-per-hour on the Nürburgring’s main straight, which was a testament to its extreme electric performance. It proved to be faster even than the non-production NIO EP9, Xiaomi’s underdog SU7 Ultra Prototype, and even the new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1X. The sub seven-second lap is just one-tenth of a second slower than a Manthey Racing-prepped Porsche 911 GT2 RS, and it beats the 6m 52. the072s time posted by the track-focused Mustang GTD back in May by almost a full 10 seconds. Granted, the Mustang GTD wore road-legal tires for its run, while the SuperTruck ran motorsport-derived slicks.
Get ready for a record-chasing ride on one of the world’s most legendary circuits:
Though Ford doesn’t provide too many details about the run itself, the Blue Oval’s official announcement does state that “every breakthrough goes straight into the trucks you’ll actually drive.”
A federal court in Florida found Tesla partially liable for a 2019 fatal crash, after evidence presented at trial proved the company had withheld crucial data. The lawsuit was filed by the family of Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was severely injured when a Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashed into their parked SUV in Key Largo. After repeated denials that the data existed, the plaintiffs hired a hacker who recovered the evidence, leading to a jury awarding $243 million in damages.
If this case sounds familiar, you could have already read an article posted earlier this month which briefly covered the topic. This is a follow up to that quick news piece.
The crash and Tesla’s initial claims
The incident occurred on April 25, 2019, when a Tesla Model S driver, who was distracted after dropping his phone, crashed into a legally parked SUV. Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing outside the SUV at the time. The driver, George McGee, settled with the family separately and was found to be 67% at fault by the jury, while Tesla was assigned 33% of the liability.
For years, Tesla denied having the “collision snapshot”—data from the car’s sensors and cameras capturing the moments before and after the crash. The plaintiffs’ legal team repeatedly tried to obtain this evidence during discovery, but Tesla insisted it was corrupted or deleted. In reality, the data was uploaded to Tesla’s servers and the local copy on the car was marked for deletion shortly after the crash occurred.
“The information was key for a wrongful death case the survivor and the victim’s family were building against Tesla, but the company said it didn’t have the data,” the Washington Post said. “Then a self-described hacker, enlisted by the plaintiffs to decode the contents of a chip they recovered from the vehicle, found it while sipping a Venti-size hot chocolate at a South Florida Starbucks. Tesla later said in court that it had the data on its own servers all along.”
A hacker’s discovery and the game-changing evidence
Stonewalled by Tesla, the plaintiffs hired a forensic data expert, or hacker, to examine the car’s hardware directly. The expert was able to recover the “missing” collision snapshot, which contained crucial information about what the Autopilot system was “seeing” in the moments before impact.
The recovered data revealed three major details about Tesla’s actions and the Autopilot system’s failure:
The Autopilot system had not issued a “Take Over Immediately” alert, despite approaching a T-intersection with a stationary vehicle and pedestrians in its path.
Map data within the Autopilot ECU included a flag that the area was a “restricted Autosteer zone,” yet the system allowed Autopilot to remain engaged at full speed.
The data showed that Tesla’s servers received and acknowledged the collision snapshot minutes after the incident, contradicting the company’s claims that it did not have the data.
The trial and jury’s verdict
During the trial, the jury was presented with clear evidence that Tesla had tried to hide data and mislead investigators. Tesla’s trial attorney admitted the company’s handling of the data was “clumsy” but denied misconduct, a claim the jury ultimately rejected. The jury’s verdict reflected their disapproval of Tesla’s conduct and the Autopilot system’s failure. Tesla was ordered to pay $243 million to the victims, including $200 million in punitive damages.
The substantial punitive damages suggest the jury was heavily influenced by Tesla’s attempts to conceal evidence. The plaintiffs’ attorneys stated that they had declined a lower settlement offer because their clients wanted to expose Tesla’s behavior and promote safety, which was more important to them than seeking financial compensation.
Wider implications and industry impact
This landmark verdict is significant for both Tesla and the broader autonomous vehicle industry. The case brought increased scrutiny to Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features, which plaintiffs argued misled drivers into over-relying on the technology.
The verdict emphasizes the critical importance of data transparency for automakers involved in liability cases and sends a clear message to the auto and tech industries that their legal duties to protect consumers supersede market hype. By setting a precedent that companies can be held liable even when the driver is also at fault, the case’s outcome could embolden more individuals to sue manufacturers over failures in advanced driver-assistance systems.
What happens next?
Tesla has already filed a motion to overturn or reduce the verdict, arguing that the award was improperly influenced and excessive. Regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the Florida federal court’s decision has already had a lasting impact, highlighting the intersection of advanced technology, corporate responsibility, and consumer safety.
A federal court in Florida found Tesla partially liable for a 2019 fatal crash, after evidence presented at trial proved the company had withheld crucial data. The lawsuit was filed by the family of Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was severely injured when a Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashed into their parked SUV in Key Largo. After repeated denials that the data existed, the plaintiffs hired a hacker who recovered the evidence, leading to a jury awarding $243 million in damages.
If this case sounds familiar, you could have already read an article posted earlier this month which briefly covered the topic. This is a follow up to that quick news piece.
The crash and Tesla’s initial claims
The incident occurred on April 25, 2019, when a Tesla Model S driver, who was distracted after dropping his phone, crashed into a legally parked SUV. Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing outside the SUV at the time. The driver, George McGee, settled with the family separately and was found to be 67% at fault by the jury, while Tesla was assigned 33% of the liability.
For years, Tesla denied having the “collision snapshot”—data from the car’s sensors and cameras capturing the moments before and after the crash. The plaintiffs’ legal team repeatedly tried to obtain this evidence during discovery, but Tesla insisted it was corrupted or deleted. In reality, the data was uploaded to Tesla’s servers and the local copy on the car was marked for deletion shortly after the crash occurred.
“The information was key for a wrongful death case the survivor and the victim’s family were building against Tesla, but the company said it didn’t have the data,” the Washington Post said. “Then a self-described hacker, enlisted by the plaintiffs to decode the contents of a chip they recovered from the vehicle, found it while sipping a Venti-size hot chocolate at a South Florida Starbucks. Tesla later said in court that it had the data on its own servers all along.”
A hacker’s discovery and the game-changing evidence
Stonewalled by Tesla, the plaintiffs hired a forensic data expert, or hacker, to examine the car’s hardware directly. The expert was able to recover the “missing” collision snapshot, which contained crucial information about what the Autopilot system was “seeing” in the moments before impact.
The recovered data revealed three major details about Tesla’s actions and the Autopilot system’s failure:
The Autopilot system had not issued a “Take Over Immediately” alert, despite approaching a T-intersection with a stationary vehicle and pedestrians in its path.
Map data within the Autopilot ECU included a flag that the area was a “restricted Autosteer zone,” yet the system allowed Autopilot to remain engaged at full speed.
The data showed that Tesla’s servers received and acknowledged the collision snapshot minutes after the incident, contradicting the company’s claims that it did not have the data.
The trial and jury’s verdict
During the trial, the jury was presented with clear evidence that Tesla had tried to hide data and mislead investigators. Tesla’s trial attorney admitted the company’s handling of the data was “clumsy” but denied misconduct, a claim the jury ultimately rejected. The jury’s verdict reflected their disapproval of Tesla’s conduct and the Autopilot system’s failure. Tesla was ordered to pay $243 million to the victims, including $200 million in punitive damages.
The substantial punitive damages suggest the jury was heavily influenced by Tesla’s attempts to conceal evidence. The plaintiffs’ attorneys stated that they had declined a lower settlement offer because their clients wanted to expose Tesla’s behavior and promote safety, which was more important to them than seeking financial compensation.
Wider implications and industry impact
This landmark verdict is significant for both Tesla and the broader autonomous vehicle industry. The case brought increased scrutiny to Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features, which plaintiffs argued misled drivers into over-relying on the technology.
The verdict emphasizes the critical importance of data transparency for automakers involved in liability cases and sends a clear message to the auto and tech industries that their legal duties to protect consumers supersede market hype. By setting a precedent that companies can be held liable even when the driver is also at fault, the case’s outcome could embolden more individuals to sue manufacturers over failures in advanced driver-assistance systems.
What happens next?
Tesla has already filed a motion to overturn or reduce the verdict, arguing that the award was improperly influenced and excessive. Regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the Florida federal court’s decision has already had a lasting impact, highlighting the intersection of advanced technology, corporate responsibility, and consumer safety.
1968 Fiat Dino Berlinetta Aerodinamica1927 Delage Type 15 S8 Grand Prix1955 Moretti 750 Gran Sport Berlinetta1961 Aston Martin DB4GT Zagato1951 Ferrari 340 America Barchetta1969 BMW Alpina 2002ti1964 BRM P2611967 Bizzarini 5300 GT Strada Berlinetta1957 Ferrari 250 GT Tour de France1961 Cooper T551961 Cooper T551967 Ferrari 275 GTB/4 Berlinetta1957 BMW 5071978 Lotus Type 791925 Bugatti Type 351959 Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California1956 Porsche 356 Carrera 1500GS Coupe1955 Lancia D501925 Amilcar CGS Grand Sport1964 Ferrari 250 LM1954 Moretti 750 Gran Sport Berlinetta1988 McLaren MP4/41949 Aston Martin DB21960 Scarab Formula 11959 Ferrari 250 GT Tour de France1953 OSCA MT4 Barchetta1935 ERA B Series1967 Ferrari 275 GTB/4 Berlinetta1968 Serenissima GTFerrari V12 engine1960 Scarab Formula 11967 Moretti Sportiva 8501958 Ferrari 250 GT Tour de France
The Owls Head Transportation Museum in midcoast Maine recently wrapped up its 47th Annual New England Auto Auction, sending nearly 200 vehicles across the block over the course of two days. Though final figures aren’t yet available, our back-of-the-envelope math shows that the August 22-23 sale achieved a strong 81-percent sell-through, with roughly half the lots offered with reserve.
Ten of those sold vehicles came from the estate of a collector of woodies, and all were sold without reserve. We can’t imagine that there were many serious woodie collectors who hadn’t heard about OHTM’s “Grain & Glory” sale-within-a-sale, and with real-time online and phone bidding available in addition to the traditional raise-your-paddle sale, buyers had every opportunity to step up. With the market for woodies trending downward as enthusiasts age out and collections are broken up, this auction provided an interesting snapshot of the values of these specific vehicles on this weekend in August.
Eight of these vehicles were station wagons, and two were convertibles. Some were more rare than others, and all were at least in better-than-average condition. Hemmings was there as these vehicles went up for bid, and we’ve listed the sales results, including buyer’s premium, from low to high. As always, the proceeds support the museum’s mission of preserving and sharing the history of transportation. Watch for a full report on the auction in a coming issue of Hemmings Motor News.
The wood-bodied station wagon was offered only in Pontiac’s top Custom Torpedo line 1941. According to the seller, this example had been resprayed in its original color, and its ash and maple coachwork had been refinished. The brown vinyl upholstery was neat and presentable. Beneath the hood was the Pontiac’s original, 90-hp inline-six, mated to a Hotchkiss three-speed manual transmission. It was described as being in “better than driver condition, showing signs of careful upkeep without losing its vintage charm.” The standard Custom Torpedo wagon was one of the most expensive Pontiacs offered for 1941, with a base price of $1,200, the equivalent of about $26,400 today. Though production figures aren’t available, these timber-sided Pontiacs are a relatively rare sight today.
Ford produced nearly 750,000 vehicles in the 1935 model year, but just 4,536 of those were station wagons. This was the oldest of the 10 woodies offered, and was an older restoration that was still holding up well, with good paint, woodwork, and chrome. The interior had been reupholstered in correct brown vinyl, with a small repair patch showing on the front seat. Unfortunately, a bent valve had left the flathead V8 running on seven cylinders, but the Ford was still able to be driven. “As an authentic and increasingly rare example of Ford’s pre-war utility innovation, this 1935 Model 68 Woody Wagon is a must-have for any serious collector or vintage Ford enthusiast,” the description read. “Whether displayed, driven, or enjoyed at vintage car meets, it represents the timeless appeal of American motoring history.”
Chrysler’s Town and Country is certainly one of the best-known wood-bodied production cars of the late 1940s, but the Plymouth division offered the same old-world charm in a more affordable package with its P18 Special Deluxe, turning out 3,443 for 1949. With a price tag of $2,373, or about $32,200 in today’s dollars, it was the most expensive Plymouth offered. According to the seller, the wagon was subjected to a cosmetic and mechanical restoration some years ago, and had been driven just under 14,000 miles since. We admired its smooth and glossy woodwork, its better-than-average paint, and its decent chrome. A driver-side spotlight was a nice period-correct extra, as were the factory heater and radio. The 217.8-cu.in. straight-six was said to be in excellent mechanical condition, working in concert with a three-speed manual transmission. “This 1949 Plymouth Special Deluxe Woody Wagon has never been winter-driven, has always been garage-kept, and remains accident-free, making it a standout collector’s piece,” the catalog read.
Just $10 less expensive than the flagship Roadmaster four-door sedan, the Super station wagon was a premium offering from Buick, with fewer than 2,500 produced for 1950. This example was another older restoration that still showed well, with high quality paintwork, chrome, and woodwork. The Super was powered by Buick’s famous “valve in head” inline-eight, displacing 263.3 cu.in. and making 124 hp. The interior, featuring leather and Bedford cord upholstery and a slatted wood headliner, had been expertly redone. “With its elegant styling, quality restoration, and carefully maintained mechanicals, it is ready for both show field admiration or leisurely vintage touring,” the catalog read. This was the last of the “Grain and Glory” woodies to cross the block.
In its last full year of production before World War II, Ford turned out 9,485 examples of its Super Deluxe station wagon. Priced at $1,015 — about $22,300 today — it was the only 1941 Ford with a four-figure price tag. This example had been resprayed in its original shade of Mayfair Maroon, the grille and bumpers had been replated, and the original woodwork — featuring maple, birch, gum, and basswood — had been refinished. The leather upholstery, unique to the Super Deluxe, was from a LeBaron Bonney kit. The wagon was described as “fully roadworthy,” with only a few thousand miles on its rebuilt 221-cu.in. flathead V8, which was rated at 90 hp. The catalog called it “an extraordinary example of a prewar Woody that retains its originality while benefiting from expert restoration.”
Buick was the last U.S. manufacturer to transition from wood station wagon bodies to all-steel, holding out until 1953. Just 1,830 Super wagons were sold in the woodie’s final year, a tiny fraction of the division’s more than 485,000 sales. This example had been refinished it its original Mint Green, which complemented its maple wood framing. It was upholstered in two-tone green leather and Bedford cloth, with green wool carpets and a matching cloth headliner. Though the Super was Buick’s middle-priced line, it shared the flagship Roadmaster’s new, 322-cu.in., 164-hp V8 engine, paired with a Dynaflow automatic. We noted that the wood was excellent condition, though the rechromed bumpers were wavy in places, and there were some minor masking flaws on the respray. The seller disclosed that the heater mixing valve had been bypassed due to a minor coolant leak. The Super was described as “ready for display, touring, or further preservation.”
Buick offered wood-sided station wagons in its Super and Roadmaster lines in 1948. Supers, like the one offered here, were powered by a 115-hp, 248-cu.in. inline-eight engine, which was paired with a three-speed manual transmission. Priced at $3,124, the equivalent of about $42,000 today, the Super wagon found 1,955 buyers for 1948. According to the seller, the wood body has been professionally restored, while the chrome bumpers, custom grille protector, fog lights and trim “retain OEM luster.” The interior, featuring factory-style Bedford cord and leather seats, was in excellent condition. “Whether added to a prestigious collection or used for vintage touring, this wagon delivers timeless style, craftsmanship, and presence,” the catalog said.
Judged purely on condition, this Mercury was the cream of the “Grain and Glory” crop. The woodwork was in perfect condition, glossy and free from blemishes, and complemented Dune Beige paintwork and chrome that was every bit as nice. Just 406 miles had been added to the Mercury’s odometer since its professional restoration, and it showed. Beneath the hood was the wagon’s original 239.4-cu.in., 100-hp flathead V8, bolted to a three-speed manual transmission. The seller cautioned that the car had been in extended storage, and would benefit from a tune-up and fluid change before regular use. “This 1947 Mercury Deluxe Woody represents the pinnacle of postwar station wagon design and is truly one of the finest examples in existence,” the catalog said. Wagon production amounted to 3,558 for the 1947 model year, less than a quarter of its Ford counterpart.
Chrysler’s iconic Town and Country has long been a standout in the world of woodies, thanks to its rarity, elegant design and high build quality. For 1947, the Town and Country was offered as a four-door sedan in the six-cylinder Windsor series, and as a convertible in the eight-cylinder New Yorker series. The factory price of $2,998 — about $43,400 today — made it second only to the corporation’s Crown Imperial. This example had had a high-quality restoration at some point, and still displayed well, though some age-related flaws in the paint and some spots where the glossy varnish was bubbling meant it had lost its concours-quality edge. The interior, upholstered in Bedford cord and leather, showed the light wear you’d expect from occasional use. According to the seller, the car had just over 55,000 miles on its odometer, and its 323.5-cu.in., 135-hp inline-eight was running strong and smooth. It was one of 8,375 T&C convertibles constructed between 1946 and 1948.
A Ford that’s more highly prized than a Chrysler Town and Country of the same year? You bet, when it’s the handsome, super-rare Super Deluxe Sportsman convertible. Thanks to a complicated construction process that required wood framing to be attached to the standard convertible’s steel outer door skins, quarter panels, and trunk lid, production amounted to just 723 units in 1946, 2,774 in 1947, and 28 in 1948. Its list price of $2,282 — about $33,000 today — made it more than 30 percent more expensive than the standard convertible. This was one of the most visually appealing of the bunch, with some checking of the woodgraining on the trunk and some light wrinkles in the leather upholstery giving it a warm patina. The 71,879 miles on the odometer were believed to represent actual mileage. “This particular car has been exceptionally well maintained, updated, and restored as needed over the decades, and it presents in outstanding condition,” the catalog said.
If reading this far has whetted your appetite for a woodie to call your own, we suggest that check out the listings in the Hemmings Marketplace.
My kiddo turned six less than a month ago, so he was ripe to visit Disneyland. As we needed a car, I happened to notice one of the cheaper rentals was a Tesla Model 3. Intrigued with the prospect of not having to pay for the highly taxed California fuel, I thought it was a win-win.
In fact, both my wife and I rented Tesla Model 3s—no, this wasn’t some strange his-and-her rental as much as having different travel schedules on the upcoming Sunday, as I was slated to judge a class at the San Marino Motor Classic, and she didn’t want to stick around and take a late flight.
Luckily, our check-in attendant told us how to use the key (really, a card) and the shifter (not unusual these days) because, after all, they needed to be reinvented by some brave somebody who probably is not from Detroit. She also deflated my hope about refueling, saying I needed to return the Model 3 with at least a 70-percent charge or I would incur a fee of $30 or so.
Other than a steering wheel, nothing in front of the driver.
A seasoned enthusiast knows that once the seat is adjusted and the seat belt inserted, it’s time to adjust the mirrors. Noting the minimalist interior layout and lack of buttons for anything, I went into the menu of the large center display and was able to find instructions on how to adjust the mirrors, with all selections—including left and right mirrors—requiring tedious input.
When I exited the facility, I was curious where my wife was—it seemed she didn’t know how to get the car moving and had to call our Tesla friend to guide her.
Once we were both on our way headed to Santa Clarita, my wife called me and asked, “How do I adjust the mirrors?” and “Why is this car is such a POS?” Her steering wheel was peeling, and she felt the whole car rattled. I explained to her that some people drive rentals like they hate it, yet her feeling of uncertainty from a rental was unacceptable. We let it slide.
After a 45-minute ride, here were my initial thoughts: thrust was impressive and seamless, but my rental was about as rickety as my wife’s. There was under 60,000 miles on mine, so I was not impressed by the Model 3’s integrity. Ditto the screen—I prefer knobs and buttons for many functions buried in menus, and there’s pretty much nothing of the former on this Tesla. Also, for such a minimalist vehicle, I was surprised by the lack of a heads-up display. Visibility was impressive.
Yet what impressed me the most was this feature on the screen that showed my position on the road, along with the position of surrounding cars. It was a small-yet-easy-to-see portion of the screen, somewhat like a sidebar to the navigational map. However, after chatting with my boss, he showed me on his own Model 3 that he could enlarge it to take up the whole screen.
After working at the car show, I stopped by Mercado Buenos Aires to pick up baked goods for my dad, then drove around looking for a Supercharger. All I had to do was press an icon on the screen and it showed me the local Supercharger stations. Alas, the one I went to on Washington near Culver City was nonexistent, though I did see a private parking garage with chargers. Unsure what was proper, I subsequently drove closer to the airport, getting off at the Slauson exit. During this time, I called our Tesla friend, who told me Tesla leased the space, and I would have been allowed in the private garage. True? Too late now!
When I arrived at the Supercharger, I was at 35 percent. I hope there’s room for me because I have a plane to catch! I plugged it in, then asked a neighboring Tesla owner what I needed to do. She told me the one I was at wasn’t working, so I moved closer to her, plugged in, and waited. She said it was running slow, which was true because I waited a nerve-wracking 45 minutes to achieve a 75 percent charge. As the airport was 10 minutes away, I thought I could return the car with at least 70 percent—luckily, that was correct.
The awkward proportions of the derivative Model Y
Tesla owners swear by them, which I always find intriguing considering several quality issues they tolerate and ignore. I’m intrigued by the fuel savings over my wife’s suburban assault vehicle, as we already pay $X.00 for fuel, which is likely more than a Model Y payment would be (including the cost to charge at my house). And how much would my insurance increase? But, man, range anxiety is real! Sure, I wasn’t running out of charge—I just needed to have the charge at 70 percent without missing my flight—but having to find a Supercharger for the first time, combined with not knowing the ins and outs of charging and charging times, was stressful. Thankfully, I had Pre-TSA, so that allowed me to enter the airport and slide into the terminal with no issues despite carrying luggage and a light sabre.
I still desire a utility vehicle that features a manual transmission, but I could really appreciate the display showing surrounding cars. It’s a safety feature that I can’t say I have seen in another vehicle, though my experience with EVs is small.
