• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

What is that little car?

Share this page

GTP1960

GTP1960

Jedi Knight
Offline
image.jpg

This is a pic of Myrtle Beach in the 50's I think.
anybody recognize that little car moving down the lane?


thanks.
 
What is Nash Metropolitan for $100 Alex.
 
Not convinced. I'm pretty sure the "continental" rear tire on the trunk lid was standard on the Metropolitans. I don't see one on the car in the old photo.

Also, the two-tone paint patterns seems wrong where the rear roof joins the body.

So ... ?
 
NutmegCT said:
Not convinced. I'm pretty sure the "continental" rear tire on the trunk lid was standard on the Metropolitans. I don't see one on the car in the old photo.

Also, the two-tone paint patterns seems wrong where the rear roof joins the body.

So ... ?
Click to expand...

agree about the continental kit - what I see is where the rear of the roof touches the body between rear window and door - and the shape of the fender wells.
 
Trabant? (Be surprised if they would let the "red threat" into SC in the '50's though)

image.jpgimage.jpeg
image.jpg
 
It looks like maybe the camera distorted the shape of the car. The dimensions seem too square for a Metropolitan, which was fairly narrow. Front fender skirts do suggest a Nash product, though.
 
A Metropolitan
 
NutmegCT said:
Not convinced. I'm pretty sure the "continental" rear tire on the trunk lid was standard on the Metropolitans. I don't see one on the car in the old photo.

Also, the two-tone paint patterns seems wrong where the rear roof joins the body.

So ... ?
Click to expand...

SaxMan said:
It looks like maybe the camera distorted the shape of the car. The dimensions seem too square for a Metropolitan, which was fairly narrow.
Click to expand...
I'm with these guys...try squishing the 1956 Oldsmobile in your mind...

56Oldsmobile03.jpg


56Oldsmobile03.jpg
 
SaxMan said:
It looks like maybe the camera distorted the shape of the car. The dimensions seem too square for a Metropolitan, which was fairly narrow. Front fender skirts do suggest a Nash product, though.
Click to expand...

circus clown car?
(there appears to be a carnival in the background.)

image.jpeg
 
SaxMan said:
It looks like maybe the camera distorted the shape of the car. The dimensions seem too square for a Metropolitan, which was fairly narrow. Front fender skirts do suggest a Nash product, though.
Click to expand...

I remember our class picture back in high school.
The camera rotated slowly thru an arc, on a tripod, to make a panoramic image of all of us on bleachers.
(slow enough where one guy was in the picture twice, by allowing the camera lens to pass & then running to the opposite side before the camera got there.)
If that was how the photographer took the pic, That might explain the distortion of a moving car, while all the stationary cars are normal.
 
Wow - never thought of that. A "slow pan" with one car actually driving past.

But ... still doesn't explain front wheel "skirts" and lack of Continental spare.

The mystery deepens.
 
Not sure if it is camera distortion - the objects in-line with the car seem "normally" proportioned.
 
Because the quality of the photo is so poor, it make it hard to distinguish what model it is, but saying that, we had two Metros in the 70s and there are a couple discrepancies I see. First I've never seen a Metro without a spare tire mounted, second, the rear fender well looks like a teardrop shape, metros were square. The hood looks too short. The tail light area looks odd also. Hard to tell. Reluctantly, I would vote no, But?? J

View attachment 47616
 
Thanks Paul - agree with you.

Also, doesn't it look like the two-tone paint change is too far back, almost vertical to the rear window? The Metropolitan had the paint drop line much closer to the front window.

View attachment 47617

And the rear bumper of the mystery car looks like a two-stage chrome bumper - not like the one above.

Plus, the rear quarters of the roof seem much narrower in the Metropolitan, than the one in the original photo.
T.
 
NutmegCT said:
Thanks Paul - agree with you.

Also, doesn't it look like the two-tone paint change is too far back, almost vertical to the rear window? The Metropolitan had the paint drop line much closer to the front window.

View attachment 47617

And the rear bumper of the mystery car looks like a two-stage chrome bumper - not like the one above.

Plus, the rear quarters of the roof seem much narrower in the Metropolitan, than the one in the original photo.
T.
Click to expand...


I retract my vote for the Metro. Also, notice the trail light orientation is different. (Vertical on the Metro, horizontal on the mystery car)
 
Looking at the back of the car, it definitely isn't a Metro. I seem to remember a car that that was sold through an American car dealer that looked like that, back in the late 60s, but for the life of me, I can't remember the name or what franchise sold it. It looks like a little car my brother in law had when he came back home from Germany. ??? PJ
 
Back
Top