The Cal-look Lounge

I was thinking today it woud be interesting to get everybody's perspective on how this niche hobby has evolved since they've been part of it. Obviously, guys that pretty much invented the scene (Sarge, John Lazenby, Kingsburg Phil, Dyno Don, etc) are probably going to have a much different view on what's come and gone (and come back again) versus us younger guys (I've only been into hot rod VW's for 27 years).
What was cutting edge when the scene was in its infancy later became "old news", only to become "cool" again, in some cases right? Which begs the question... "What's left to do to these old cars, yet still belong within the fuzzy lines that encircle the 'California Look'?"

I think old and new, 99.9% of us will agree a car like Dave Rhoads green '64 is 100% a "California Look car", it's got the big HP (but not the biggest) motor, Weber 48's, the holy grail wheels, bodywork devoid of moldings, T-bars and tidy (and individulaistic) interior and the history and time slips to back it all up. No brainer right?
How about Dave Mason's car? Again, big HP motor (11.30 1/4's), 48's, BRM's but this time with bumpers and moldings. Yet it looks "right" and obviously "goes right too", so it's a no brainer. But in the late 1980's, this approach (huge HP, sedate, stock bodywork and classic wheel treatment) was either a "standout" or a "walk on by..." car depending on your perspective.

Personally, when I first "became aware" and saw cars like Mason's (and Rhoads', Schwimmer's, Brinton's) etc, in 1989-90, it made that initial "burn" into what my own impression of what the scene was really about when you boiled it down to its essence: guys that were thumbing their noses  at what the masses were doing and quietly went about their own way of creating cars and a scene that stood for something to somebody. I think it took some time for the "other" segments of the VW hobby to really take notice of what these cars were about. In the early '90's, at the VW Classic, there were 10-12 cars done in the same vein, and largely unnoticed. By the late 1990's things had changed and the scene had exploded. And has morphed and grown since.
But what's next?

The return of this?   ;)

Ronald McDonald Fuchs!!

It is quite colorful !! LOL.

Try'n to get into the paint/body world after get'n out of high school in 1980 ,I started taken painting class's at the local Jr collage. Was introduced to varies custom body work type stuff, And myself kind of glad to see fad'n out is the custom stuff in the VW world. Like a few thing's I did to my squareback. French'n front plate and intenia . And wild paint work.

Whats next?  Two words...Safari fenders!  ;-)

...Ed.

Can we please forget that "Turbo" mirrors ever existed?
yuk


With increasingly stringent emissions regs, combined with increasingly stringent bureaucracy, perhaps the next "big thing" will be cars that look stock but go hard enough to pull a sailor off your sister!  ;D
Go the Superstockers!

I think the 72 DKP Featherly Park pics that John L and others have posted sum up cal look for me. Simple paint, simple decluttering mods, and additions just related to performance.  That was the perfect era to me.

I wholeheartedly agree. Before mirrors went under cars at shows, way before.

My opinion, simplistic or not, is that it's all cyclical.  Everything comes back around sooner or later.  As the cars continue to age and the numbers get smaller (in the big picture) the radical custom stuff of the '80s goes by the wayside by natural attrition.

that really does sum it up !!!!!!  :)

People may want to hang me for saying so, but I find that car much less hideous than some of the radical/full customs that some folks with too much money/time on their hands have built in recent years...lol.  The "Bugsplat" rat rod in a recent Hot VWs comes to mind, though I'll preface my dislike of that car by saying I completely and congenially respect the owner's effort.

I was obviously kidding with that 80's multi-color shot. 

I think our hobby will likely go the way of the street rod crowd.  There will be traditionalists, the new technology players, and stuff in between.  By comparison, there are still those out there that build a hot rod using a flat head Ford with traditional parts.  Paint on those cars/trucks tend to be single color, non-metallic colors and the wheels and tires tend to be "throw back variety like steels, hubcaps and rings or American 5-spokes.  Then there are the ones that have the latest paint colors, metallic, billet wheels, fancy suspensions, billet parts, high-end leather-type interiors, electronic components, fuel injection and complex ignitions, PC tuning, etc.  I think most would agree that we've seen this enter the air-cooled VW hobby.  Nothing really wrong with that, to each their own.  When you go to a hot rod show you'll still see well done examples of cars that very well could have rolled out in 1960, 1970, etc.

I expect to see more technology creeping into our VW hobby.  Modern coil/plug ignitions, fuel injection, computers/ECM/PCM, engines with components and tolerances designed to run today's low emission 5W/20 oils, and more. 

As for me, I'm sticking with tradition.  I can't wait to bolt on my copper Hurst shifter, Hunt magneto, IDA's and Centerlines to my '62.

Yea David!

Personally I think that since our cars are 50-60 years old, they should be built in a traditional sense....trying to put all the modern technology on a cal looker is kinda dumb.  Just buy a 993-996-997-991 Porsche and be done with it if you want new. 

I've had that Hot VWs issue in my bathroom for over a year.  It has a 2110 with IDAs and a Berg 5 speed.

Agreed!

A proper Cal-Look VW is definitely steeped in tradition.
When I built my '67, I pushed the envelope so to speak, because I wanted to be different from the old timers. Heck, some of those D.K.P. guys were already over 30 years old by then . . .
It is undeniable, however, that small group, those "old timers", defined "the look" for us all.

The various trendy fads . . .  graphics, two-tone paint, murals, or what ever else we have seen done, make a car look dated. I would have to guess that if fresh car is built and the owner includes something that was a short-lived fad, there must be some nostalgia involved . . . some pleasant memories from a certain time that the owner wants to relive. I don't think that we will ever see a full-scale revival of red with yellow painted alloys! Conversely, a VW with all the traditional elements does not look dated, it simply looks correct and timeless.


John, you are talking about wide FLARED fiberglass fenders, right? Our next-door neighbor's son had a '68 like you just described.  It was in excellent condition and he always kept it very clean, but every time I saw it, I remember thinking it could be fixed to look cool. All it needed was a set of fenders, dechroming, new wheels/tires, and a little lowering in the front . . .

Are flared fiberglass fenders collector's items yet? ::)

The evolution to what is now considered the Cal-look occurred somewhere between 1967 and 1969.  All at once wide glass rear fenders with adapters and Chevy mags looked out of place.


John, you are talking about wide FLARED fiberglass fenders, right? Our next-door neighbor's son had a '68 like you just described.  It was in excellent condition and he always kept it very clean, but every time I saw it, I remember thinking it could be fixed to look cool. All it needed was a set of fenders, dechroming, new wheels/tires, and a little lowering in the front . . .

Are flared fiberglass fenders collector's items yet?

Yes, I was speaking of flared fiberglass fenders.  Will they ever become a collectable item?  They could as I can't believe some of the things that command such high dollars these days.  For me I'd only want the fenders like my car had back in the day.

all good points guys

What I'm trying to get here, is what was your initial impression when you got into the scene? What made you take notice? What has changed (to your liiking or disliking) since then?

One thing I remember was the sensation of "shock" not only from the first real fast ride I went for, but also the visual aspect. Two different cars, the first real monster I went for a ride in was a primered trash-can of a '64 but it was untouchable in high school parking lot full of Z28's and Trans Ams. But for the initial shock of what could be done, aesthetically, it was Pete Staat's metallic blue car from the mid 1980's, then the line up @ the VW Jamboree 1990 (Costa Mesa).... Gary Berg, Schwimmer, Jim Lowe, Dave Mason, Brody Hoyt, Hector, Jim Bangs, Rayburn...

More than anything, for me, something about a definitive Cal Look hot rod, something about the car has to make you keep thinking about it. When I got into the scene, the big thing was aqua-blue-green paint, repro 8 spokes (even on '67 & earlier), 1-piece windows, no moldings, chrome engines and Baby Dellortos. There were rows and rows of identical cars like this @ Bug Bash in the 1980's (Pleasanton CA). My '67 was bone stock aside from 5.5" wide chrome 5 lug wheels and amber topped taillights. And the small hot rod motor I built for it, senior year.
I agree, some of the aspects of what has, long term, defined "The Look" are timeless, and will remain so. But, again, something needs to stand out. Walking the shows in the early 1990's if a car wore BRM's, it was an event.

Okay, here's what I remember from when I got into Volkswagens in the mid '80s. Beetles were the Model T of the day. I got my Thing (an original-paint Acapulco) for $200 in 1986-'87 ($409 in today's money). I got my first beetle, a rust-free original-paint '65 sunroof that was already lowered in the nose and had new 135-165 XZXs for $800 in 1988 ($1,640 today).

Proof that we knew they were cheap was in what we did to them. I was kind to my cars (still have the Thing in fact) but many of the kids my age in Las Vegas tore their cars up. They were disposable--throw it in tha gutter and go buy another. Everyone knew of a solid roller for a Benjamin and even at that price those cars sat. Baja bugs were EVERYWHERE.

Now this is the part where I piss off people.  ;D

Because those cars were so disposable we really enjoyed them--they were basically grown-up go-karts. That's the one thing that I lament today; many people forgot how to have fun with these cars and frankly that's the Volkswagen's greatest charm.

Sure, most people build big engines and lower 'em and so on but now the cars are too precious, too 'valuable' to do the things that endeared these cars to us years ago. I'd bet that most people in the scene today don't know how to spin a donut. How can you kick ass on downtown streets at 2AM when you have to come to a complete halt to cross a water trough because your car is so low to look 'cool'? You know the party's over when people start bragging about how they never drive their cars in the rain or when they start to moan about paint flaws or refuse to eat a burger in the car--a must-have experience at an In & Out or the original Tommy's if you haven't done so already.

I'm not saying that we have to intentionally damage our cars but man we'd be so much better off if more people stopped thinking of them as Faberge eggs. They're NOT. Despite the cultural veneer we've laid over them they're just econoboxes. Big deal if you put one into a curb. Metal bends back into shape. Paint repairs aren't impossible. Believe it or not rock chips look sort of cool--they prove that you enjoy your car. My point, you made the car nice the first time around so you can do it again.

And I don't want to hear some cop-out about how expensive the cars are nowadays. I bought my bug with money I saved at my $3.75/hour job washing cars. We knew it wasn't all that much money then but laying out that $800 for a 23-year-old car really stung in 1988. Today the price of a car like the one I bought in '88 hasn't increased as much as my income has. And aftermarket parts are cheaper than EVER. I'm holding an April '88 HVWs in my hand right now. Johnny's Peel & Fade asked $56 for an Empi 5 clone. That's $114 today. CIP1 now sells the same wheel for $69! An 82mm crank was $349--that's $686 now! You can get a nice forged crank for HALF of that.

I rant like this because I see the writing on the wall. I work in the hot rod/street rod industry. I see firsthand what happens when people start taking economy cars too seriously. The street rod crowd in particular is the biggest bunch of pussies. They'll spend all this dough on big engines, big tires, fancy suspension, and so forth and never hit more than half throttle for more than a few seconds. We have to be careful that we don't turn into those fannypack-wearing old timers who sip light beer in lawn chairs next to their cars at car shows. All they do is talk about the 'good old days', the times before they forgot how to have fun.

That's why I really admire Bruce for taking his car down to Mexico. Seems like every time I see a burnout video it's some European cat. I drove my Thing to Bonneville last year, 2,800 miles round trip and I spent at least four days on the salt that everybody thinks will ruin a car (it won't, you just have to clean it properly). My point? That shit's FUN! It makes for good stories and what else is there than experiences with our friends? The cars are just a common interest among us. Make them work for you for a change.

[/rant]

I love this post. best post I've read in a long long time

I completely concur.  Thank you for saying what's been on my mind for a long time.  "Grown-up Go-Karts.."  That couldn't possibly be any more true...lol.

Chris - You're right, we don't need to become like those dreaded Street Rodders! The only thing I have to disagree with you on this is the price of admission. You say your Thing would be $409.00 in today's money - I'll give you double that - right now, cash American! But of course you won't sell it to me for that because we all know that a decent Thing can easily bring $8-10k
And a "rust-free original-paint '65 sunroof that was already lowered in the nose and had new 135-165 XZXs for $800 in 1988 ($1,640 today)" ~ I'll take all you can get, especially since I just sold my '63 rag (that wasn't even lowered) for almost 5 times that.
My tongue in cheek point is there is quite a bit of difference to get involved with the hobby now in regards to initial purchase.

But I do agree that many folks take these cars (just like the street Rod crowd) too far and too serious and then worry far too much abut hurting then (I like the Faberge egg reference)
I will never forget something that happened a while back. I was in my 32 Coupe (you know the car), a car that I sold for about $90k ~ I did a big old smokey burnout and this guy read me the riot act. I thought he was pissed for doing something "childish" and "Irresponsible" - no he was pissed that I was "treating the car that way!" I told him I didn't build a 450 HP small block Ford and back it with a Top Loader 4 speed to drive it like my 80 year mother!

And by the same token, last weekend I was at a red light and the guy next to me honks at me, it was Nick Licata (Editor of Camaro Performaers) So when the light turned green my little '66 bug somehow did a nice little burn out. Oh the Horror  ;D

Sez the one guy with a Deuce coupe to another with a roadster. :)
 

First off, how DARE you challenge me you lutefisk sniffer?!

Actually I could have made my point a little more concisely. In the end it balances out: I make exponentially more today than I did when I paid the equivalent of $1,640 then. All of us do (or at least SHOULD) make more than we did 25 years ago, even accounting for inflation. Also we have to consider the condition of the car. Your '63 was probably a hell of a lot nicer than my '65. In fact just last year I saw a slightly tattier '64 in Spokanistan that the guy couldn't unload for $2,500.

Also, I never said that what I paid was the going price at the time. Remember, I'm the son of a car salesman. I buy low.  ;) There's a word for the guy who paid that much for your car: sucker.



I think that's my general statement. Oh yeah, for full disclosure I owe the Faberge Egg thing to Bill Stewart. He's a cool dude.


Jesus, Don! Did you use a gun? This must've been before the market implosion.



That's a man who deserves to get punched. Maybe not in the face or anything but a good fist to the belly would do him good.


How on earth do you drive your mother? Wait...I don't want to know that.  ;D


So how many car lengths did he give you?

Speaking of Camaro Performers, didja see last month's cover? The front 3/4 shot that he didn't use as the spread is one of the posters in the Source tech center. I'm kind of a big deal you know....  ::)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/377668_10151524263835820_1014073057_n.jpg)

I never sniff the fish before eating it.
The duece coupe is gone, so is the 29 RPU ~ a 37 Coupe is now in that parking place, at least for now
Let's leave my mom out of this

Nick was in his Jap pickup and turning right - or he would have smoked me. And don't tell Nick, but I don't read that rag unless there is an article on our products  ::)
I already knew you were a Big Deal, you're just so dreamy.

Hey, don't feel bad: I don't read ANY magazines! Have you ever read the crap they print in them? You'd think they were just trying to sell you somethin'. 


I'm glad SOMEONE does.

I didn't get "into" the scene in the '80s, but that's when my mom would buy her car-obsessed son a magazine off the rack at the grocery store. Of course I was aware of my surroundings and even on the salty east coast at that time there were still aircooled cars around, so I was familiar. What kid doesn't dig a Bug?

Anyhow, I remember occasionally finding a VW 'zine and coming home with it. And man did it blow my mind to see the neat stuff people were doing with Bugs. Ok, they're a funky car on their own; now add your personal twist, some bright colors, shiny wheels, and suddenly you're having fun.

That's what I lament the most about the "modern" aircooled scene. The daring is gone. The expression is gone (not everybody's expression is good, granted). Where's the desire to build something that stands out? An aircooled VW stands out now just by default, but that's not the same.

I've recently confided to someone on here that I'm DYING to build an '80s car. I want to do a lot of the things that enthusiasts today would wail and gnash their teeth over. And not just to piss people off ... it reminds me of why I really started to dig Bugs. I get that fun feeling.

When I first started there were kids doing it, and it was cheap. I know this because I was a kid, I had a minimum wage job, and I was doing it.

You also have to factor in familiarity. When I was a real little kid I remember several people that my family knew had beetles. Once upon a time (like well into the '80s) it was common for an intersection to have at least one air-cooled Volkswagen in it. So we sort of grew up with the cars.

Nowadays you're somewhat lucky if you see an ACVW on the road at all, especially if you're off the West Coast or Southwest. So unless a kid has some sort of exposure through a friend or family member it isn't so likely to own one.

And frankly I can't blame people for not getting into air-cooled volkswagens. They handle like shit, they have bothersome mechanical restraints, they're quite dangerous, and good parts are really getting hard to find now. If you ask the average enthusiast why they dig Volkswagens it's usually because they like to prove that they can triumph over the perceived shortcomings. The main reason I stick with 'em is that they remind me of the good times. I get the warm fuzzies when I think about them. Logically though, it makes much more sense to get into Subarus or new Mustangs (flame away, people!) 

i remember when i first got hit by the cal-look train, it was 1995ish i was living in ontario canada and a guy brought out his silver 59 hmm okay empi 5s neat but very common at the time but the caps srewed on, kept looking at the car wow those are some big carbs (idas) talked to him and found out him and his father built the car around 69 if i can rememeber correctly he retold me stories of him heading out to the "empi" supplier and racking in a nice bill for the carbs alone i cant recall the engine size but it did get going to where ever he was heading to rather quickly, and then the lasting momment of seeing a cal look car in action around the same time  period maybe + a few years i was at the michigan vintage show i saw the herbert video cranked and a white and black car decked to the look, was sitting there in the booth area, the cars turned out to be plows and conklins cars and dave took a rider out for a boot infront of the show and to this day hearing his car run up that street right out of the parking lot left a lasting impression on me those two events have lead me to follow this style, as for me and a few more on here the early 69-72 era cars are the prime in style, and have made me sit for hours researching asking questions about correctness im almost ready to start putting this car together and build it to a point where it will hold its own but i will drive it, because if the fast cars are "to nice" to be driven then how can we get the word out that these cars are better then any others. i look forward to the future (but not the costs) but for me even though i never lived it ill be suck in the early 70's thank you very much

That was the longest sentence I've ever tried to read.

I got in to these cars because my Dad had two of them when I was growing up.  More great memories driving around in a Beetle when I was a kid than i can remember! Driving my car brings back those memories!  When I was younger I loved Hot Rods too (still do!) when I found out you could Hot Rod a VW I researched all I could to find out how to do it, and do it right! When I saw and heard my first Hot VW it sent chills up my spine!  I thought....Got to have one of these!! I live in Florida and I can tell you I can count on one hand how many are in the town I live in.  I'm guilty lately of not driving my car too, I got too damn busy studying for a big test related to my job. I will start driving it again though.  My $.02

Another thing, I understand styles come and go. Many cars from the 70's looked similar, and from the 80's, and so on. But it seems to me there was a lot more personal influence before this whole business of repopping every single desireable part happened.

I agree. What I like about looking at photos and old articles on cars from days gone by is the individualistic treatments used, especially in the interiors. All kinds of unique takes on the dash, instruments, interior lighting, upholstery, etc. Yes there seems to have been a common link amongst many of the cars, but it sure seems like the cars were less sheep like. In the beginning, the guys that gave birth to what we know and love didn't have some pre-administered template they had to adhere to. Today it seems there is great care and effort given to keeping within the imaginary lines. I think the internet has a lot to do with it. Used to be not just anybody's ride was made "public", as you had just one form of "mass media" and those were the magazines. That and this hyper focused effort to create life (?) as it was 25-30-40-50 years ago, not just in VW circles but it seems in so many slices of automotive culture. The manufacturers themselves are regressing back to styles "of the golden age". Did modern society run out of balls to look forward and come up with something original? I know I am generalizing here and I am just as gulty as anybody else. I think aliens will land on earth someday after the human race has had its day and say "so in the first decade of the 2000's.....this species lost steam and had to look backwards to feel socially acceptable?"
The whole business of being period-correct but foresaking getting the most out of the car I cannot get on board with. That and a guy that spends stupid $ on building the "ultimate" idea of what a "Cal Look" car should be and can't help but keep throwing more and more "stuff" on the car, only for it to become overweight, diluted and quite unlike what the original idea once was.

Oh where do I begin? We're like grumpy kids in a bitter-candy store!  ;D



I'm going to make the case that the internet isn't responsible for homogenization. It's pretty prevalent in the '80s and '90s when magazines were responsible for disseminating information. And the aftermarket was responsible for making parts readily available. But neither the magazines nor the aftermarket is responsible for that homogenization. We only have ourselves to blame for that.

What made hot rods and customs unique once upon a time was their builders' resourcefulness. An enthusiast had to make do with production-car parts--I have photos of a '40 Ford that date to 1957. It has Volkswagen seats in it (and a Stovebolt engine with a 12-port head against a Cad/LaSalle trans). No two cars were alike because there were so many production cars from which an enthusiast could harvest parts. It just took a bit of work.

The aftermarket emerged to solve problems. Most people aren't capable of making their own wheels, casting their own manifolds, grinding their own cams, etc. And the magazines drafted a whole other demographic of enthusiasts who liked what they saw yet didn't have the resources to even make brackets to adopt VW seats to a '40 Ford. The aftermarket responded by offering parts. And as the enthusiast population grew so did diversity.

The aftermarket is a double-edged sword, though: it appeals to peoples' laziness. Why bother with a boneyard, nasty parts, and laborious modifications when you can just call a supplier and buy a ready-made part? A prime example is again seats. I have all Hot VWs back to 1967 in binders. They're one of my highest prized possessions, a collection that belonged to a good friend's late father. For the better part of 20 years I've PORED over the things. I've read every article, even the ones on goofy cars. I tell you what, most Cal Look cars 'from the day' ran seats from cars like Datsuns and Mazdas. Hell, a car in the VERY FIRST Cal Look issue has Mustang seats in it! Do that now and many self-proclaimed experts would string you to a post. I've even read where people chastised an early car as non-authentic because someone dropped it on a ball/IRS pan. I tell you what, kids, it really doesn't get much more Cal Look authentic than that.

The problem is that because so many parts are available in the aftermarket people feel that they must buy them. Now there exists another legitimate function of the aftermarket: there are no more boneyards to comb through to harvest parts. Now there are only swap meets and communities like this so I can't really hold it against someone for having a few excessive aftermarket parts. But people need to understand that's not the norm, at least it wasn't during the period that most of us are reveling in.


This was already a problem by Y2K, at least in some minds. BMW designer Adrian VanHooydonk (almost the best name in the world) came out very against retro, calling it among other things a gimmick. Bear in mind that retro is far different than vintage. Retro is a new design that evokes historical ones--New Beetle or PT Curser whereas historical refers to an actual old object or a faithful reproduction of one. I think a lot of designers felt that we'd done it all before so there was no place to go but backwards. They were appealing to peoples' feelings about 'the good old days (if they were so good then why did we change things?).


I think the real trap there is taking 'period correctness' so seriously that the car and owner get too self conscious. Maybe we're talking about the same thing. I think it's important that people work to the best of their abilities but a lot of people get into this perfectionist mode and BUILD THE BEST CAR IN THE WORLD! They invest themselves so deeply and sacrifice so much that they live in mortal fear that they'll have to go through it again if they mess up the car. At that point the whole act of having a car is punishment.

Of course that's not exclusive to the vintage thing. Ironically, the hot-rod traditional backlash that started in the '70s and gained momentum in the '80s was a backlash against the anguishing perfectionism and cost of the 'modern' Boyd, Buttera, and Thelen cars. But a bunch of 'traditioinalists' in the present rod hobby have found a way to 'period-correct' the fun and soul right out of their cars. This perfectionism is also inauthentic from a historical perspective: with the technology today we can (and often do) build cars that are way beyond the quality of those built even 20 years ago.


That's a real old one right there. In the '50s they referred to those cars as Gook Wagons. Make the distinction that gook in this case is a derivation from guck which refers to sloppy debris and not the pejorative term for Asian people. I think those cars exist as a means to assert peoples' perceived power, a sort of ego stroke. Many people build cars as a competition of sorts--who can outdo each other. And it's tedious.

By the way, Jim, thanks for the quote in your sig. That's a first for me.

from your post: I think a lot of designers felt that we'd done it all before so there was no place to go but backwards. They were appealing to peoples' feelings about 'the good old days (if they were so good then why did we change things?).


Most of this retro-flavor harkens back to the days prior to oil embargo, 55mph speed limit, air pumps, thermal-reactors, retarded timing and big ugly EPA rubber shock bumpers. Guys I know that are and were into cars during those "dark ages" tremble in nausea when you bring up a 1974-1980-ish car. Maybe all things (mass marketed) automotive lost their way at that point? And only recently we all said "Man if it were only 1966 again... "
Which to me is fine. I think the best looking car ever was the Miura. And to keep on topic here, the best looking "Cal Look" cars were the first few of them, Don Crane's, Mike Mahaffey's, Thurber's, Flemings black oval. It's the purity of each of them. Trying to separate what these cars represented, youth, rebellion, ingenuity, (and most of all not being afraid to be different) from what we might see thru reto-tinted lenses is hard.
BTW I know of a recently debuted true blue, full blooded, real McCoy Cal Look car, complete with heart and soul that's running  Saab Sonnett seats.
See, there is hope.  ;)

Hey, we don't call them the Malaise Years for nothin'! You Europeans reading this got some weird designs in the '70s and '80s but ours were weird AND bad! Okay, the Brits understand; they had British Leyland after all.



Well at the very least the innocence was gone. For the first time peoples' confidence in the automobile as the way of the future was shaken. This was the first really big setback in our post-war prosperity. Gas was expensive (although not the most expensive; when adjusted for inflation gasoline cost more in 1960 than it did in 1974 and cost about 50 percent more from '30 to about '36 than it did during the embargo). And the government's encroachment (while legitimate even if imperfect) made many people aware that the things that we've come to rely on are in fact killing us (look at a photo of Los Angeles during the '50s through the '70s--you can't see the mountains for the smog). And technology got to the point that cars went fast enough to kill and maim us more efficiently than ever.

Of course the aftermarket flourished in those years if only so people could modify older cars. That's when the street-rod market rose from the ashes of the dead hot rod.



Well that's the beauty of living today. Want a Miura? Go buy one; they exist (and adjusted for inflation they don't cost as much as they did back then). On the other hand, do you want to drive to work in a car that turns a high-13 in the quarter, yields 28mpg, urges you along in quiet comfort, and won't kill you in a 35mph offset-frontal collision? You can buy that too. It's called a new Mustang. We have it all today and everything can come to the show, big progress if you ever tried to drive your car to a Goodguys event when you were a kid.



That's the purity of form established by all of the pioneers. Go to post-war hot rods. They're stripped down and essential. But look what happened to the hot rod when cars like the '55 Chevy came out. They became irrelevant. Their owners found it difficult to keep pace with a showroom car so they began competing on aesthetics and the show car was born. The Wink Mirror was the quad headlight stands of 1960.

I totally agree that the best cars are the purest ones. They actually had a bit of a purpose then. 


It warms my heart!

He was right!!

What I love about those cal look cars featured in the early VW magazines is that they always had at least one feature that, by today's standards, looked completely out of place compared to the rest of the car. Such as a completely dechromed car with a chrome glove box door or later model tail lights on an oval window. Carpet half way up the door panel (Aronson's rag), or the Berglar with full US spec bumpers, no one would consider doing that stuff today. It's wrong, it totally goes against the flow of the car. But for me it gives the car some individuality. I love that stuff.

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  ;D

Now we're getting somewhere.

A VERY good point VERY well put  :)

This is epic awesomeness.  I truly agree, wholeheartedly!

Well you're in good company. The late Gray Baskerville heralded those little visual speed bumps. It's sort of like Frankie Bacon's observation, "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."

Those 'flaws' are charming. They make otherwise sterile machines feel a bit more human-like which is to say slightly flawed. People don't understand that there has to be something slightly flawed about a design. We expect to see some sort of flaw and if we don't see it we get sort of uneasy, like we question if something is real even if we don't realize it.

Of course it has to be the right flaw, almost calculated.

Baskerville went to great lengths to preserve the few key flaws in his old roadster (which he referred to as his late pal Paul Horning's car). The rear wheels sit a bit too far forward in the wells. They stick out a bit too much. The doors don't line up perfectly. The old synthetic enamel is worn out. It has roll-bar mounts in the trunk that haven't been used since the '60s. The wrinkle paint is sloughing off the chrome wiper motor. The 'new' (as of '74) Sun speedometer doesn't work. The shoebox Ford hood latch, while cleverly adopted to hold the trunk closed, is clunky.

That is a hot rod built in the golden age of the hot rod. He kept it that way to show people that's really how those cars looked and felt. And damn it all if that car doesn't feel absolutely unlike any other newer car out there. It has tons of soul. Only a fool would dare to 'improve' it.

I honestly don't know how we got by without internet forums years ago ::) ;D

Amen, brother. I mean it's okay to set some sort of parameters but for god's sake don't fence yourself in or build a car by committee. This ain't a popularity contest.

People often corner me with, "I want to get my car in a magazine. How should I build it?" The answer is simple: build the car the way you like it. Editors are jaded to hell--we've seen it all and we've seen most of it so often we can't stand it. So we gravitate to the cars that were built to suit an enthusiast's vision and passion. Believe it or not but that shit shows. If you do that, you'll still love your car even if nobody else--magazines included--hate it. That's far better than building it to please someone else only to have it go unnoticed. That's a recipe to resent a car if there ever was one.

Sarge, you are THE MAN!  ;D ;D ;D

This is getting interesting. Especially the psycobabble from Chris as to why we and others do this or that with our cars. Love it. His comments about "traditional" and"Period Correct" in the Hot Rod world are very poignant and cause me hours of entertainment on a certain forum where it is particularly interesting how new young guys come in and try to re write history to suit their vision, perspective, or desire of what it should be.
 No matter what some would like to believe (and this is as true here as it is in the Hot Rod world), it all didn't fit into a neat little box and the cars weren't all identical and following the "Rules" back then either. Oh don't get me wrong, we had our rules, but they weren't spelled out, it was more like do something we don't approve of and we'll give you a hard time about it. And the funniest thing was you didn't have to stray far from home to find that other areas had a different set of "Rules". I will never forget a comment made to me by a customer when I was recreating a very well known 32 Ford that he had owned and then was totaled in 1961. While working on it one day we were BSing and the subject of Bee Hive oil filters came up. He said in the 50's if he saw a car at the drive in with a Bee Hive oil filter on it, he would chose it for a race, cuz no serious street racer would ever run one. I mentioned this to another famous racer who only lived about 10 miles away  from our first hero and he laughed and said in his area no serious racer ran without one!
In my case I was fortunate enough to live in Newport Beach and work for Auto Haus with guys like John Lazenby, Ed Craig, Doug Mische, Ron Greiner and others, in what I consider the Heyday of the Cal Look movement. Because of that I have some very strong feelings about the way that I will finish Ruby the '66, but it doesn't mean that there is a blue print per se. In my mind there are certain things that define the look - for me - like non metallic solid colors, a certain rake (I've exaggerated that on this car), a small collection of wheels (and I might even slightly stray here, cuz I'm sick of BRM's LOL, I never really liked them then either!) and the biggest faux pas on my car right now is it has, Oh the HORROR, a Herrod Helper!!  :o  Not because I think it belongs to "The Look" but because I DRIVE my bug 75 miles every day and I have documented that it is worth a minimum of 3 miles per gallon, and these days that matters to me! But don't wprry, i won't be adding a Wink Mirror

That dude should see if he can get a job as a writer. Man can he ramble!

He'd never make it.  ;D

Please, Don. Psychobabble refers to psychological jargon. I'm just talking out my ass!


Here's something that speaks directly to Chuck and the other guy's opinions about bee hives and the things that somehow 'define' Cal Look. To me Wink mirrors (as awful as I think they are) are entirely Cal Look material. If you're going for historical accuracy they have no place on an early '70s-style looker but they're perfectly suited for an '80s-style car with Mexican bumpers, Vitaloni mirrors, and a velour interior.  

I realize that sounds somewhat hypocritical of me to say what they'd be appropriate on but it also acknowledges how broad the definition of Cal Look is. There are many factions: there's the cone crowd who replicates famous cars. There are historical wonks like me who anguish over finding parts that were not only available but appropriate during a certain historical era as sort of a means to suspend time. Other historian types just grab whatever is old and cool regardless of its historical appropriateness. There are others who wholeheartedly embrace modern technology and parts that just happen to have some common ground with old ones. And the great majority of people merely grab whatever tickles their fancy regardless of era and put it together.

And the thing is, every one of those groups is fully capable of building super bitchin' cars. That, to me, underscores the diversity and opportunity within this weird definition of Cal Look. It's tough--maybe even impossible--to pigeonhole a movement that's 40-plus years old and never went out of style.

You got THAT right!

well said, except that I don't include those 80's car in my definition of Cal Look - right or wrong to others, it doesn't matter. they were no longer Cal Look, they morphed to something else. It was like the kid that pulled up next to me the other night at the supermarket. He was in a slammed 64, you know the look, where the rear torsion bars must have broken. It had US Towel bar bumpers, 5 spokes in chrome, a huge freakin rack on the roof, visors over the headlights, all the trim, another rack on the back, a stinger on a stock 40HP, and a visor above the windshield.  He asked me if I was going to accessorize my car?!?!?!?! said no, I'm going for more of a Cal Look style, and then he floored me with "Me Too"
I just shook my head and walked away mumbling, this ain't religion, you can't rewrite history to suit yours.

I think some feel it is.

For me I am not even sure where my connection to the Cal-look scene started. Quite frankly I am sure that neither of my cars qualify as Cal-lookers. That is fine with me because I never got involved to qualify as or replicate anything. Beetles were simple and that appeals to my sensibilities. Cal-lookers (that I only saw in magazines) were even more simple without chrome etc...PLUS they were fast! I always liked to go fast!!!

I had a ride in an older friends 70's style bug with an 1835 when I was around 18 and it changed my life! We blew off a Corvette, did some burnouts and I was hooked. I think the difference for me is that I was not directly exposed to any "scene" because of my location and lack of internet (80"s). For this reason I built my cars to suit my own sense of style with parts that worked for the way I was going to DRIVE them. MY passion was fueled by the feel of driving not the love of an image that someone else had already created.

When the internet hit me with the original forum my world expanded 1,000%. I saw the quaife test and read all of Jim's and Marks posts over and over. They knew what they were talking about, shared freely with me, and the DROVE their cars. They inspired me (Jim still does. RIP Mark). I have to say that I also feel I see the internet as a limiting factor for a lot of what is being built in this scene because it seems to be built with only tradition in mind. I love the Cal-look spirit but I can't claim to be from and era or a scene. I feel it my responsibility to build my cars to reflect me and the culture that I bring to the hobby. I can't imagine not putting 185/60/15's on the front of my car because others may not approve!

Although my cars are not traditional Cal-lookers I believe I represent what the scene stands for every time I DRIVE my cars and show new people what a fast raked VW is about. Doesn't matter if it is at the track upsetting V8"s or running around doing some burnouts while my son laughs his head off. Have fun, build what you want, and drive it really hard. Don't use this connection to JUST repeat the past, we might miss out on something  ;) If you dig my cars, cool. If not you would if you drove them...LOL

Insiders to the scene have a pretty hard and fast idea of what traditional California Look is.  Talk to guys outside that circle, or hell even outside the VW world altogether, and you'll get guys describing a 'Cal Look' car that wouldn't necessarily fit the mold described on sites like this.  Then there's the Cal STYLE subculture (L.A. scene) that is frustrated with being lumped in with Cal Look, as well, but that's a whole other topic altogether.

I digress.  The '80s trends, from what I've gathered, resulted from a lot of people wanting to truly stand out as individuals and as a result a lot of very different (no, not traditional Cal-Look as per the '70s era line drawing) styles and custom influences emerged.

Myself, I love cars like Ted Dominguez's Bug, to me that epitomizes Cal Look, late model to boot.  I remember people dogging on '68 and later cars at one time or another, as if you had to have a '67 ideally or earlier car to truly fit the Cal Look moniker, which I never understood.  To get down to that level of nit-picking reminds me of Star Trek guys arguing over which show was best. lol.

I agree with what was said earlier: no question about it, build your car for yourself and your own tastes.  To do otherwise is  a surefire guarantee one will never be happy if the first and foremost goal is to please/garner favor from others.

See, that's the funny thing about trying to define a look.

A word derives its meaning by consensus: people have to agree that the word represents a particular thing. Otherwise the things you call cookies would be pants to someone else. The sky would be red and in would be out. Pretty soon someone would show up with a Cal Look Camaro*.

Then there's also a personal definition. I don't draw a distinction at a year as much as at a style. To me, a stock-bodied car in a stock color with US-spec bumpers, a stock-ish interior, a big engine, and custom wheels is not a Cal Look car. Even in the '80s that was a separate class--we called it Resto Custom (resto rod for the street-rod crowd, resto-mod for the muscle-car crowd, etc.). That's not to say it's a bad look or anything but to me it's just not Cal Look. Again, to me. Like '80s isn't to you.

However, while I went off to wander in the desert to play with hot rods in the '90s everybody came to the consensus that those stock-appearing cars were Cal Lookers. It seems that all it takes is a common denominator: those cars are nose down, fast, and have custom wheels. Ergo, by the evolved definition they're Cal Look cars--the Cal Look of the '90s and New Millennium I guess you could say.
 

But like Jim just observed that it's a competition for some people, other people feel as if they can change the religion to suit themselves. All it takes is a bunch of people to come to consensus with that guy and you now have a definition.

This extends to language itself. There's a word that exists for ignorance: irregardless. It's a portmanteau of irrespective and regardless. It's a double negative even--irrespective of regardless. But alas, you hear people use it all the time. And not too long ago Merriam Webster added it to its dictionary. It's not as if the editors even remotely consider the word legitimate; they merely alter the dictionary to suit the evolution of language.

Christ on a bike this is some good weed! (just joking; I'm a cough-syrup kind of guy)

*about the Camaro. Boy this is gonna piss off a few people. If you look at it, the Cal Look movement took shape as the NHRA created the Pro Stock class. Think of the common ground: Pro Stock and Cal Look cars sat nose down, had big tires in the rear and skinny ones in the front, used lightweight wheels, eliminated everything not essential to the vehicle, forbade 'custom' bodywork, and so on. Hell, they both ran fiberglass hoods, Grant steering wheels, Hurst shifters, and so on. Pro Stock and Cal Look were oriented to one thing: going as fast as possible in a straight line. Cal Look It owes its existence largely to the Pro Stock movement.

Hell, Cal Look evolved largely by the same way Pro Street (the domestic outgrowth of Pro Stock) did. The cars started out relatively high but over time got progressively lower. The rear tires got bigger (albeit not as big as pro street). The trim seemed to migrate back onto the cars. I mean look at late '70s and '80s Pro Street and Cal Look cars: Pete Santini was doing graphics on all of them!

So really, I think a Cal Look Camaro isn't as off base as some of the other definitions of Cal Look are. (just my personal opinion of course).

I got my Deist lobster-tail suit on. Flame away!  ;D

Think this a reason I'm building a (COW-LOOK) car, Less rule's Ha Ha !!

I got into VW's because girls really liked the slide open hole in the roof. And at age 16, I really liked the view as they stood up so close to me on the seat. Everything after that has been a lame attempt to get back to those days.  :P

Thanks for the kind words Mike. I was hoping you were going to join us here. I just can't wait to continue to hear the onslaught of "why did you...." comments when I'm done. It was the perfect storm.
"you sure you want this old color?"
"yeah..uh..yeah.... why?" flipping through a paint chip book with my son
"once we mix it, it's yours..."
"Wait a minute, can I take this chip outside?"

And then it happened, I relived an afternoon way up in between Tenaya Lake and Tioga Pass in Yosemite (9000'+). I was a bit light on my feet, thanks to altitude and other forces, and was feeling woozy and noticed the sky and its color way up there. And I remember in my stupor up there swearing I'd paint my car that color someday (because it was such a trip, how succulent of a blue it was). Anyway, seeing this paint chip did a bunch of things at once: made me remember the day up there and my promise to myself, and it made me realize that I didn't want "another old school" in vogue, period correct color like I was lying to myself about. My car's never been one to give much of a rat's ass about following much. Plus, when I asked my 5 yr old son if he dug the color, his eyes lit up and that was that.
But of course, those that are ingrained to "follow the rules" have already made their opinions clear. They don't like it.

Ya think I got into bashing on the majority of the HS parking lot because I wanted to be liked?

There's a lot to that.

Because Ed Roth made his name in the '50s and '60s people assume that he's somehow 'old school.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The guy HATED going backwards. I got one of my favorite terms, "The bad old days" from him. In his estimation, if things were so great back then why did we change them? Of course he had to use older car parts as his material sources; they were affordable. Why reinvent the wheel?

But to him it was asinine to even customize a production car. I have a book behind me where he says, "Why would you do that? When you're finished you still have a Ford or a Chevy, someone else's dream."  He really encouraged people to build their own bodies and fiberglass made that possible.

He felt largely the same way about missing out on things. To him, you can't see what's coming if you're constantly looking back.

It's not to say that we should install 20-inch wheels and suede interiors. Those are just the physical trappings of progress (which are already outmoded anyway). There are so many other ways to embrace technology that don't have to alter the way a car looks. Why we're still mucking about with a twin-trailing-arm front suspension that Porsche stole FROM TATRA is beyond me. It has ZERO anti-dive properties and has no roll center, both of which play a critical role in high-speed handling and braking.

Sure, people have introduced bolt-on A-arm suspensions but the bolt-on system really compromises the geometry. And they still use Volkswagen knuckles which is preposterous because it's impossible to get a decent negative camber curve from a short spindle. Whether it's because people don't have the skills or they've just drank the Kool Aid, the Volkswagen crowd is still stuck in this 'We can't cut up these cars' mode.

The same goes for semi-trailing-arm rear suspension. I got some old news for you guys: swing-axle suspension is flat-out a bad idea on a high-horsepower car. They oversteer with impunity, a really bad thing to happen when you get crossed up at speed. That a few guys have figured out ways to tame them has justified a whole population to assume that they're adequate for high performance. I'm not saying that we all have to go out and convert our rear suspensions but we DO have to eliminate this stigma that says that a semi-trailing-arm suspension isn't appropriate for some abstract definition.

By in large the Volkswagen community has locked itself in 1992 or so and refuses to progress. Those were some of the other things that made the early days fun. It was about experimentation and progress. These are all things that don't necessarily alter a car's aesthetic (which to be honest is a prevailing reason we build these cars this way) but it does alter their behavior.

Gray Baskerville...loved that guys writing, from the heart and not some generic super edited down articles like one reads in Road and Track!  I used to love an English mag called Performance Car that went belly up in the late 90s, it was written in the same funny, down to earth style that I love. Peter Egan style, to name another. I hate generically written homogenized drivel. :D

Last week I talked to Jim Jacobs, aka the "Jake" in Pete & Jake's. I found some photos of three '33 Fords that he had, one of which became his famous yellow fenderless coupe with the '37 pickup grille. Gray shot the photos for an R&C story. The two were quite close--Pete & Jake's rebuilt Gray's car in '74 in fact. Typical for people close to Gray, Jake got a little wistful when I started describing the photos. He remembered the day vividly. "You know, Gray just made everything fun," he said. And you could see it in the photos--a fist full of dollars in one, them jokingly jamming a Deuce tank into a garbage can in another, and so on.

He earned countless fans like you for that reason. The dude was a great-big child in a playground full of cars. He just loved what he did and it showed in his writing.

You should read Mark Vaughn. Different style but really evocative and quite intelligent. Same goes for Jonny Lieberman. You can feel the passion come through their stuff and it's enjoyable even if you don't care for the things they're writing about. I haven't read him for years but Jamie Kitman used to be the same way.

They all make it sound fun because they're HAVING fun.

'
Cal Look from Pro Stock - Hmmm, bit of a stretch. The timing is close, with ProStock coming about in 1970, but i think the Cal Look more emulated the VW Drag Racing scene (and maybe THAT followed Pro Stock styling, or maybe it was just waht worked best to get a VW down the track). BUT I don't know about the ProStreet path as ProStreet really was Neither - it wasn't a Pro class of anything (except maybe the pro Builders pocket book) and it certainly wasn't Street, at least not in the way that Cal look bugs were.
And current ProStreet? Well, since I work with a guy who races "ProStreet" and it's a carbon fiber bodied, tube framed car, that makes over 3500 HP and has gone 5.90's at over 250 there sure as hell isn't anything Street out that any more  ;D

Yep, I really used to love Jamie Kitman in early Automobile magazines from the mid 90s or so.  Different, quirky style.  Interesting to read.  I still see stuff from him from time to time.

Most of the generic articles about the NEW MORE POWERFUL LEXUS in R&T are the opposite!  Reads like a bad press release, they all read the same and one comes away from them not remembering anything of value. 

I will try to find some stuff by those other guys you mention. 

Yep, it's ALL about the fun, the feeling.  Much like good music.  Yngwie Malmsteen is a great technical guitarist, but after a song or two, I always fall back on some old Rolling Stones from Exile on Main Street or Sticky Fingers.  Sure, not as technically proficient, but much more interesting and fun!

This is a completely legitimate justification. And I'm certain that figures into Cal-look somewhere.

Well few things have a direct linkage. But compare these:
(http://www.cruisenewsonline.com/ROT-RichieZulProStockCamaro/RichieZulProStockCamaro1970s.jpg)
(http://images.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2012/05/GibbHarrellCamaro_05b_1200.jpg)

with

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2060/1507959912_a2c1e5c9a8_z.jpg?zz=1)
(http://www.dkpcarclub.com/dkp_images/Fleming.gif)

They're only a few degrees apart. They're all just hot rods.



Fair enough; Pro Street cars weren't daily drivers the way most cal cars were but remember Cheez Whiz? Man, today a lot of people are building Beetles that don't look all that different stylistically. Guys are even tubbing Volkswagens now, largely a result of the VW racecars.
(http://www.streetmachinecentral.com/UserFiles/Image/cheezewhiz2.jpg)

Chris it makes me glad to know guys like Ed Roth had their sights set on the future. I feel like I have so little time that I can't afford to redo the past. I don't even like to watch a movie twice when there are so many that I have not seen! I'm already cooking up my next build with no recipe. It will be a VW, it will be fast, I will drive it with malice........hopefully there won't be another one like it ;)

Chris,

Remember Cheez Whiz? it's ingrained in my brain!!!!!!

It was good to see Scott and the car at the HOT ROD mag 65th party. I've spent some time with Scott and he is a great dude. You might have seen the deal with me and him building John Buck's Speed33 at the GNRS on TV a couple years back, classic "car guys doing silly stuff"!

White smoke!  Zach for Pope!!

 :D

Yeah, no kidding. That's why I've never really appreciated most clones of historical cars. I mean for one person to absolutely faithfully clone a car that no longer exists is fairly noble if only to create a physical memento of missing history. We need to have representations. But I think the subsequent clones only cheapen the original. I mean how many Herbies do we really need?

The thing that people seem to overlook is that there's a lot of latitude to do something new even if you're using nothing but old parts. Not every combination has been done. And we can bring modern technology to bear on old style. My pal John Gunsaulis built a roadster that made it into the AMBR contention at this year's Grand National Roadster Show (you can read about it in this month's Rod & Custom--it's the cover car). He cast his own floor mats. They have ribs and the car's name on them and they look as if Ford made them. He made his own gauge cluster. He made his own seat frame to resemble a Wassily chair (in fact he used the bends from a reproduction chair). The crazy one is the fuel tank sides: he used a CNC router to carve them to resemble a Fordson tank but with his car's name instead of Fordson.

He built a car that in no way resembles any other hot rod ever built but it's undeniable: it's a hot rod. It goes to show that you can confine yourself in a pretty narrow niche (historical appearing hot rods or even Cal Look Volkswagens) but still find ways to push the boundaries.
 

I dunno buddy...that sounds like a recipe to me but I can't argue with that at all!  :)

Both of these cars are like living next door to a grumpy, unreasonable, youth hating old man in his bathrobe and reading glasses and bombarding him with really bad punk guitar chords all day

http://cal-look.no/lounge/index.php/topic,8784.0.html

Which is why I love them.

If they weren't quite so low you could also do...donuts on his lawn.  ;D



Tony Orlando and Dawn.

My old neighbor guy barely survived the "tuning" segment of the build! The cops drove by constantly because he kept wanting me arrested for revving it......

I really love seeing the stuff PIP builds.

Hey Mike!

Pleas get some new pics off your car when it´s out on the streets again. I love it.  8)
Love this thread to. It will be endless.

Carry on.

Will do Bugsy. Should be cracking it open tomorrow.

You are absolutely right about it having little to do with the Cal-look except for the idea that it is a moment in time that fits just right in your mind and yet is hard to translate into words. I was talking to a street rodder buddy one time about a certain car  we both knew. "It's got that look, ya' know that look?" I knew exactly what he was talking about without another word having to be spoken. As the Cal-look evolves and subtle changes happen, there is still "that look" that ties it together with everything that was just right before. Like that 16 year old girl standing on the seat, hair in the wind, and legs up to.........Ya' know that look?  It changes and yet it never changes.

As a grade school kid, shiny parts and bikini girls from 90s VW magazines were the things that made the biggest impression on me. Remember the old GEX longblock ads? I loved looking at Formuling France steering wheels, repop alloys, and that pink beetle in the Hawaiian-style white rubber ads. Those things were all very cool to me and I wanted to put them on a car. In hindsight, the ads placed by those companies were doing their job perfectly because they were attracting fresh people to the hobby with flashy, exciting parts. Later on, clean, hi-performance cars (muffler mike's STREET car, the SSB, and dave conklin's car) really got my attention and kept me wanting more. I liked the stripped down, no nonsense look that they all shared. This style was transfered to the build of my own car years later.

This hobby has changed a lot in the last 20 years, but many things have remained the same. There are still large ads with cylinder heads, interior parts, and cool steering wheels. That is fine because it may appeal to the next uninitiated, but curious kid like me. The clean, hi-performance cars are also still there, however the magazine cars seem to be much more about one-upping the last guy than anything else. I guess that is inherent with the territory. There are some things that I dislike about the hobby, but I would rather discuss the things that I like. The internet is already overflowing with people who have nothing better to do than whine about other people's cars, why the newest fads suck, blah blah blah. BORING.

Anyway, I really like the movements toward land speed racing, old speed, and getting VWs to act more like sports cars. The majority of our hobby is probably aware of supercharger kits, okrasa kits, and various other parts that have created a new niche within our hobby. The idea of build a modified 36hp engine and shoving it into a stripped down, vintage looking oval window beetle is very interesting to me. This would make a cool daily driver or weekend car that wouldn't cost a tremendous amount of money if the work is performed at home. With all that being said, I am not sure what the future holds for our hobby, but I hope it is around for a long time. And hopefully new mag engine cases won't cost an arm and a leg. They are already too expensive as it is.

First thing to go then:
Front torsion bars
stock steering wheel replaced with a Formuling France
Shifter replaced with anything else
Exhaust, replaced with an SS
stock wheels, with anything non steel
AM radio replaced with an 8 track
Stock Carburator
Chrome trim
Bumpers

First thing to go today:
Stock Height
Stock Steering Wheel
Stock Shifter
Stock exhaust
Stock Engine
Stock Wheels
AM Radio with no radio
But now I'm looking for a bunch of NOS stuff that I would have happily thrown away 30 plus years ago.

Yep.

Wow, 3 pages of Grumpy Old Men!  :D :D :D

HAHAHAHA!!! I'm going to roll out the guard lips and slam my Beetle over fat 14s, I'm a bit of a rebel, so I'm not gonna cover the sharp edges either. Throw a 2BBL Holley on it and 4 big pipes so it doesn't sound right. I'm gonna leave the dents in the roof from where people have climbed all over it to watch the races over the years. It's a Superbug too, so this way I can be universally despised at the next VW car show I roll into.

Oh, hang on, already been there done that.........
 ;D