Yesterday’s ’52 Chrysler in the sideview mirror got enough positive response to make me dredge through my archives to find more. Today’s diaporama starts off with an import, this 1965 Dodge Dart GT—the Valiant Signet was the substantially similar domestic car; it differed in badges, trim, and mechanical specifications. Having spotted this one just under sixty seconds after starting out on a long and unwanted trip, I chose to take it as a good omen. Sure enough, I eventually made it back.
Next, a familial ’66 Plymouth; the kind of car God had, according to Scripture (“He drove them out of the Garden in a Fury” somewhere in Genesis; also Jeremiah 32:37 “In my Fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them again unto this place”). Not the best photo, but the best I could do in the time I had before the light was about to go green.
Today is Caturday, in the parlance of the hep young internet people, so here y’go. I’m generally not a panther fan—bitten too hard, too often—but this is my least-unfavourite variant; I think these are the best-looking of the bunch. This car—if we ignore the vandalistic wheels—reminds me of the one our across-the-street neighbour had for years when I was growing up.
Oh, I gotchyuh cherry-red ’54 Mercury pickup, right ovuh HEEyuh! This one warranted a bonus non-mirror pic. Being stuck waiting at a notoriously long light to turn left, I had no reason not to turn around and snag it:
Rounding out today’s series is this makeshit makeshift mirror repair. One imagines (at least I do) Jan Brady having a meltdown over her lost, stolen, or strayed mirror:
(Oh, one other thing: if you’re particularly sharp-eyed you may detect something unusual about some of these pics. This makes hint № 2 now, and I think that’s enough.)
You mean the image being reversed?
Same reason you will see ambulances or paramedics with the word reversed on the nose.
Friend said he was going to paint
TIHS ON
On the front of his pickup and watch the reactions. He never went through with it but it did make some giggles thinking about it!
Nope, that’s not unusual at all; that’s a normal characteristics of photos taken in mirrors. Well, unless you use a non-reversing mirror, but we don’t have those on the side of a car because it would be very disorientating.
What car are you driving? From that near vertical rear glass, it looks like a dynasty or other Chrysler K derivative. But I don’t recall if the defrosting strips curve like that on those cars.
Fair question. I’ll answer it if nobody (including you) can pick it out. I did appreciate the design of that backglass defogger; the lines following the outer perimeter of the glass seemed to do a better job of providing more visibility, faster, than ordinary lattitudinal lines. I can think of some cars that had longitudinal lines (Corvette, Mercedes) but none with the perimeter-contour type except the kind of car I was driving.
Spirit/Acclaim, although I don’t recall you owning a red one.
Correct, my “time capsule” ’91 Spirit ES 3.0—the one visible in the second photo in this post.
The view out of your car looks very familliar to me. I have a ´94 Saratoga LE 3.0
Could be the same red color
[ Reply ]
Ah! Good to see there’s a Saratoga-driver on site. Have you encountered Peter Wendt’s pages here and here (English version of that 2nd page here)?
Paint colour could be close, but I think probably not identical. The ’94 variant was closer to Himbeer; the ’91 more of a Weinrot.
The fun part: by saying these views are familiar, you’re indirectly answering my question about what’s unusual…though you probably don’t realise it, and apparently neither do the North American readers see what’s missing! That’s two more hints. 🙂
Only one of these shots appears to include the right-hand mirror, but I’m not seeing the standard “objects in mirror may be closer than they appear”.
While parked at a loading dock, another truck attempted to back in next to me and proceeded to take out my passenger mirror in the process. I called Crackerjacks, asked for Sailor Jack and his dog Bingo, told them that they goofed giving this guy a commercial driving license and then headed to a drug store for a hand held mirror and some tape to do a repair much like the one that you have pictured. It’s ugly but it works.
Laurel and Hardy fan?
Yes, they were the best.
My dad owned a ’91 Dodge Shadow for a time, and I recognize a few parts your Spirit shared with the Shadow/Sundance. Allowing many clues your car to be identified as a Spirit/Acclaim from the pics, independent of you telling us you owned a Spirit previously.
In the first photo, the Shadow shared the thin chromed strip at the base of the window, beside the ‘V’ shaped rubber molding. The molding had a felt-like texture on its inner surface. In photo 2, the antenna base and mast were shared with the Shadow. In pic 2 as well, the seat belt and plastic seat belt upper attachment cover, match those of the Shadow. However, the Shadow third brake light cover was different. Wider and less tall. In photo 4, the exterior window base rubber molding matches the design/shape used on the Shadow. In pic 5, the interior rear view mirror appears to match the Shadow’s. In photo 6, the material texture of the rear parcel shelf and partial seat fabric says early 90s Chrysler. As too the fine ‘halftone dot’ screen pattern that borders the rear window glass. Ironically, the Shadow did not share the exterior rear view mirror design.
My dad owned his Shadow a long time. And it held up remarkably well. This was an era, when Chrysler appeared to master much of what they learned using K-car technology. And part commonality was strong among car/van lines. Producing generally bland, slightly obsolete, but remarkably sturdy cars. With practical engineering.
Very nice pics BTW. 🙂
Glad you like the pics.
Yes, actually, the Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron and the Shadow/Sundance did share exactly the same sideview mirror housings—with variants for black/body-colour/chrome and power-remote/manual-remote.
If you’re about to say no, these in the picture aren’t the same as the ones you remember from the Shadow, well, you’re right, but that’s not quite the same question, is it! 😉 That’s another hint.
Daniel, I always meant to mention I very much enjoy your writing and automotive expertise. You have been a great addition to the contributor/photographer roster on Paul’s website. I also see you write at Allpar as well. I will have to find your work there. It’s very much appreciated to see a resident Mopar expert and fan here, as I do have a soft spot for Chrysler products. Thank you!
Regarding the exterior rear view mirrors on the Spirit/Acclaim and the Shadow/Sundance, they are absolutely different! I worked on my dad’s car for years, and am intimately knowledgeable on the many nuances of the P Bodies. 🙂 See the attached artwork I supplied. You can see the shape of the black plastic housing (and the mirrors themselves) are different. Plus, the Shadow lacks the upper corner cutouts (red arrow) the Spirit mirrors had. I recall posting a pic of my dad’s Shadow to the Allpar 200,000 mile club a few years ago.
Still pondering your clues.
Unless your Spirit had Chrysler Saratoga mirrors? As the mirrors in your pics are very different than the Shadow/Sundance mirrors. I just Googled the mirror style for the Spirit/Acclaim and they do appear to match the Shadow.
Your exterior mirrors were unique. 🙂
Yup, you’ve got it: I put the Saratoga mirrors on my Spirit. Now we’ve all but come right out and said the answer to my little riddle…but not quite yet!
Nice work Daniel. Your Spirit with Saratoga mirrors absolutely fooled me. I haven’t looked closely enough at Spirits in the recent past to realize your exterior mirrors were not stock. Wondered why your mirrors didn’t match those on the P bodies, as they had no real reason to differ. Given so much part sharing otherwise.
Took another look at your pics and didn’t see any other immediately recognizable non-stock Spirit details.
Thanks for the compliments! I used to contribute to Allpar, yes, though I don’t imagine I’ll be doing so any more now it’s been bought by AutoGuide; who the hell knows what they’ll be turning it into, but I’m sure whatever it is will poll well with Millennials. Probably my best contributions were this 5-part series on cooling systems, this in-depth piece on the 25th anniversary of the Chrysler minivan, and this MoparFest coverage; others included this, this, this (speaking of views you might recognise), this piece about seatbelt/ignition interlocks, and this well-deserved snarkfest (search page for Bright lights, dim views).
Thanks very much for this Daniel! I look forward to reading these, as I do have some vacation time approaching. I hope you can continue contributing to the site, given your technical knowledge. You’ve done great work here as well.
I had a few email conversations with David Zatz, and quite frankly I don’t know how he managed the time/energy to run Allpar. I wasn’t clear how much help he had at the time. I always felt FCA should have supplied financial and technical support.
Fun Thanks
Straight on front may have been the 66 Plymouth’s best angle.
Y’think? I don’t know. I mean, yes, that’s a fine view, but I also like a front side or 3/4 view for the pointy-at-the-top, backswept-to-the-bottom leading contour of the front fender, I like the rooflines, I like the taillamp setup…
OK. As you mentioned North American readers, I’m guessing what’s missing is the “Objects in the mirror…” message.
WINNER! Yep, that’s it exactly. I installed the export sideview mirrors, factory equipment from the Chrysler Saratoga version of the car. They gave a much larger field of view, were spring-hinged, and were of much better quality made in Japan by big-name lights-and-mirrors supplier Ichikoh. The domestic mirrors were rigidly-mounted, low-bid junk with a tiny, bare-legal-minimum field of vision.
I also had the export headlamps, which were somewhat less completely inadequate than the godawful domestic units, and a few other pieces of export equipment. Not as much as the ’91 Spirit R/T I had in the late ’90s, because most of it was already difficult to get hold of back then, but.
I stand humbly corrected Daniel. I try and pride myself on catching the little details and didn’t even think of the on mirror print. I guess I was too hung up on the reversing mirror bit. That’s what you get when you believe an old wives tale!
I was confused again when you mentioned you had Chrysler Saratoga mirrors. I knew they had an European version of the spirit but didn’t know it had a very different name.
Very cool! I always learn something on this blog.
Compliment, I had not thought about that. I know these “Objects in the mirror” message from younger models I had to deal with, but have no idea since when they are used.
Yup, Peter Wendt´s site I know. Infomations about the Saratoga here in Germany are rare, so this site is very interesting for me.
Himbeer matches, I would say
Sehr schöner Saratoga!
The “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear” message appears, by law, on any passenger-side mirror that minifies the view at all. This has been the requirement ever since convex or other non-planar mirrors have been permitted on the passenger side, which is at least since the early 1980s and probably a little earlier than that; I can’t find the exact date right now.
The driver-side mirror is required to give “unit magnification”, i.e., it must be flat glass despite that meaning a smaller field of view than would be possible otherwise. Which is a shame, because I would really rather have this (too bad it never got commercialised).