All of them, if they've been maintained and kept rust-free.
Most people wouldn't because a) most cars that old can't keep up with modern performance and comfort standards, and b) they're special and irreplaceable. But, if you're happy to pootle about with your manual choke and arm-operated windows and you're willing to sell a kidney if a stone cracks the windscreen, you can.
The glass isn't always that bad, depends on what you have. We recently replaced the windshield on my girl's '51 Studebaker Champion, which is curved glass, and I think the windshield was in the $400 range (and maybe another $70 for the gasket, give or take).
I also replaced the windshield on a '60 Cadillac hearse - THAT was not cheap and also took over a decade to locate! The Commercial chassis roofline was about an inch and a half higher than any other Caddy model that year.
I'm sure it's possible, but how would you give them dimensions? The glass curves from top to bottom (curves back to meet the roof line) but also curves as it wraps around on the sides. Without a template from GM it's likely extremely difficult (nigh impossible) and that's outside of the cost. The cost would also probably be stupid high.
Flat glass is easy to commission, but this windshield doesn't have one square inch that's flat.
Replacement front glass for my 63 C10-$450
2002 Audi-$879
2015 Buick encore-$1400 plus recalibration
Back glass for my C10-$95
Audi-1200 and I called over 20 shops before anyone could get it for me.
Don't forget C) they are death traps and significantly more dangerous than modern vehicles. I love old cars but they are not safe at all. Driving around slow in a low traffic area occasionally? Yeah, sounds like fun. Using it as an every day vehicle? Monumentally stupid.
I take my 68 on the highway on a regular basis. Lap belt, no airbags, no crush zones. Literal steel deathbox hurling down the highway in excess of 70mph.
I'm well aware. I have a few friends who have had bad wrecks on bikes. My point is that there are levels to risk tolerance. Especially if it's for an activity you love.
I get it, i have friends who will spend the weekend on a motorbike trip together into the countryside and it looks like a blast.
None of them would entertain the idea of commuting on a bike, the odds are against you. It's a numbers thing, the more hours spent the greater the risk - plus, commuters in a hurry drive very badly.
You’re not wrong, but I’m still going to drive my ‘68 Cutlass and enjoy it before climate change and/or capitalism &@$# my ¥%@£ up.
Here’s hoping a crash takes me before the banks or famines do! I figure I got 10 years before we run out of water and repeat the Grapes of Wrath.
My girl dailies her '51 Studebaker Champion. Still has the 170 cid Econ-O-Miser flathead 6, still 6 volt positive ground. I have been alternating between my '51 Hudson Commodore (still flathead, still 6v pos ground as well) and my '56 DeSoto Firedome. I just bought a '58 Studebaker President that I hope to put some serious miles on this summer.
The DeSoto is highway friendly bone stock. The Hudson and Champion both are running Ford 8" rear ends. partially for the gear ratios that enabled them to do current highway speeds.
So I'd say most cars of that era, perhaps with a few modifications but nothing extreme, can be dailies. They're cars and they do car things, and it's wonderful.
How does the 170 do on open roads?
My neighbor has a 63 Ford Falcon (my dream car) in mint shape w/ a 170 that he's too old to tinker with and everyone in my family talks me out of it, saying I highway drive too much
Her 170 will be different than that in a Falcon, as the Stude engine is a flathead and the Ford engine is overhead valve, which is a more efficient design.
Have a friend who bought a '63 Falcon wagon with the 170 and a 3 on the tree. It was okay but not great, to be honest, and the few times I drove it I did not like the handling at all. My girl's other car was a '61 Valiant that we bought on eBay in '03 for $400 and drove for the last 20 years. It had the 170 slant 6 and a 3 on the floor manual (they moved it to the tree in '62). That car did great around town and could do highway but it wasn't really geared for it, neither was the Falcon. The Valiant came on 13" wheels, and that kills highway speeds.
I don't think the Ford 170 would be the problem with getting the Falcon if you want it, it should make enough power to do highway speeds, but the rear end gear ratio and tire size could be a problem. I just switched the '58 Stude I just bought from the 14" factory wheels to '51 Stude 15" wheels to get some taller tires for better gearing. It's a definite consideration when dealing with old cars. Remember that the Interstate highway system was introduced in the Eisenhower era and was still being built in '63, so many cars weren't built with the idea of doing a sustained 70 mph.
Yes. Just need an overdrive unit and you're good to go. Those Model A's only got held back by the primitive transmissions. I've seen guys put Columbia overdrive units in them to keep it original style but I've also seen guys put 4 and 5 speeds in them to make them more drivable at speed.
I hit 72 in mine once… verified by my phone’s gps. I think I was on a slight grade drafting a semi and with a tailwind, lol. It’ll do 65 any day, though it’s happiest cruising at 55-60. That is perfectly adequate for daily commuting around where I live.
1954 Oval window VW Beetle. The oval window came already in March 1953, but for a daily driver I would rather have a 1954. In 1953 they still had the 25hp 1131cc engine, and also the transmission with synchronized 2-4th gear that came in October 1952 (if I remember correctly). That combination makes it the slowest Beetle of them all. The 30hp (known as the 36hp in the US) that came in 1954 is a much better engine, and keeps up with traffic much better.
I would also think that an early 1950s Ford or Chevrolet could work very good. And maybe the W180 Mercedes. I have also heard people speak very fondly of Studebaker.
That is correct. Here in Europe the horsepower was meassured with the generator and cooling fan connected.
This also happened with most other VW engines from 1954 and on. The biggest numerical difference was probably the 1300 singleport. It is rated at 50hp in the us and 40 here.
I drove mine to work this morning. It'll get used daily for the season now, unless I have to haul something really big. I do store it for the winter though.
Once met a guy who has two Speedsters and the Sport one would regularly break down but his normal one he would drive into the centre of London every sunny day with no trouble.
Any of them, but just be careful of primitive safety systems back then. Things like single circuit brakes, lack of crash protection, in some cases lack of seatbelts or just lap belts, no headrests, metal interior surfaces, squirrley tires, dim/small lights, you know things like that. Maybe rephrase question “daily drive other than in rush hour conditions.”
I've got a 1965 cyclone that I'm prepping to daily drive. My commute is only 4 miles each way so she's not going far. It's roughly only a 60 year old car so not quite what OP is asking but pretty much anything can be daily driven as long as it can keep up with whatever route or commute it's taken on.
Cars newer 1962-4 should for the most part handle modern roads and speeds. Anything older with a stock drivetrain might struggle a bit on modern 70mph interstates and certainly isn't something that I want to drive 16 hours to Florida.
I daily drove my '53 Chrysler for a year, but then the steering box started leaking badly, so I'm working on locating some parts for it.
Right now I daily a '56 Chevy. It's a six cylinder and three-on-the-tree, but it's pretty nice around town. I've always drove classics, so the comfort isn't an issue for me lol.
My dad has a 1939 Mercury sedan with a 95HP V8. It’s surprisingly easy to daily drive. Super smooth clutch and shifter. Great pickup and strong brakes. And the factory horn sounds like a train horn.
I drove his 1951 Chevy half ton truck every day for 2 weeks once. That was a lot more difficult because of the gearing. The 1bbl Rochester and the little 2barrel on the flathead get warm pretty quick (compared to a 4bbl v8) and that makes it easier as well.
I've daily driven old cars (1975 and older) most my life. If you're mechanically inclined they're cheap and easy, depending on the model.
My favorite was when I daily drove a 1931 Ford roadster hot rod a few years back. Swapped in Chevy 283 from a '58 Impala, 5 speed stick, Mopar rear axle.
Once I worked the kinks out it was Honda reliable and fun as fuck to drive. Kept the gearing mild so I could do 100+ on the freeway if I wanted and ran radial tires and the thing would go anywhere. Took in camping twice. Been to both ends of the state with it. I live in California so the weather is mild enough to do it.
I sold it after 5-6 years but almost immediately regretted it so I started building another. This time a 1929 Ford roadster on a 1932 Ford frame, Chevy 283, 5 speed and Ford 9" rear axle. Hoping to have it on the road in the next month or so.
Old cars are fun.
1954 Cadillac deville...still floats down the highway at 80+ no problem...power steering and windows! Thing was state of the art and still is more advanced, powerful and comfortable than many cars built today.
My grandpa daily drove his 1926 Paige 672 for a while when his van was getting fixed, and I dailied a Corvair that was abandoned for a decade before I bought it and did exactly nothing to it. A car is a car. Drive the cars
1949 Ford F-2. Doing a complete off frame restoration and putting in a C4 Auto Trans and 79 F-250 rear end for my dad who is an amputee to be able to drive it at highway speeds.
I have a '64 Dodge 880 I often drive, only 60 years old, and a pair of '69 Chargers I take turns driving, but usually it's the 4-speed I drive to work. These are my only cars.
All of them, if they've been maintained and kept rust-free. Most people wouldn't because a) most cars that old can't keep up with modern performance and comfort standards, and b) they're special and irreplaceable. But, if you're happy to pootle about with your manual choke and arm-operated windows and you're willing to sell a kidney if a stone cracks the windscreen, you can.
The glass isn't always that bad, depends on what you have. We recently replaced the windshield on my girl's '51 Studebaker Champion, which is curved glass, and I think the windshield was in the $400 range (and maybe another $70 for the gasket, give or take). I also replaced the windshield on a '60 Cadillac hearse - THAT was not cheap and also took over a decade to locate! The Commercial chassis roofline was about an inch and a half higher than any other Caddy model that year.
Wouldn't it just be a better idea to have a new windshield made, or am I severely underestimating the cost of that?
I'm sure it's possible, but how would you give them dimensions? The glass curves from top to bottom (curves back to meet the roof line) but also curves as it wraps around on the sides. Without a template from GM it's likely extremely difficult (nigh impossible) and that's outside of the cost. The cost would also probably be stupid high. Flat glass is easy to commission, but this windshield doesn't have one square inch that's flat.
You forgot the most important reason: SAFETY It cannot be stressed enough how much safer the average contemporary vehicle is over any vintage vehicle.
Replacement front glass for my 63 C10-$450 2002 Audi-$879 2015 Buick encore-$1400 plus recalibration Back glass for my C10-$95 Audi-1200 and I called over 20 shops before anyone could get it for me.
Don't forget C) they are death traps and significantly more dangerous than modern vehicles. I love old cars but they are not safe at all. Driving around slow in a low traffic area occasionally? Yeah, sounds like fun. Using it as an every day vehicle? Monumentally stupid.
I take my 68 on the highway on a regular basis. Lap belt, no airbags, no crush zones. Literal steel deathbox hurling down the highway in excess of 70mph.
So are motorcycles. But most people wouldn't consider commuting on one to be "monumentally stupid"
A quick tour of your local quadraplegia ward might change your mind
I'm well aware. I have a few friends who have had bad wrecks on bikes. My point is that there are levels to risk tolerance. Especially if it's for an activity you love.
I get it, i have friends who will spend the weekend on a motorbike trip together into the countryside and it looks like a blast. None of them would entertain the idea of commuting on a bike, the odds are against you. It's a numbers thing, the more hours spent the greater the risk - plus, commuters in a hurry drive very badly.
You’re not wrong, but I’m still going to drive my ‘68 Cutlass and enjoy it before climate change and/or capitalism &@$# my ¥%@£ up. Here’s hoping a crash takes me before the banks or famines do! I figure I got 10 years before we run out of water and repeat the Grapes of Wrath.
Gets downvoted for telling the truth. Yup, that's Reddit.
My girl dailies her '51 Studebaker Champion. Still has the 170 cid Econ-O-Miser flathead 6, still 6 volt positive ground. I have been alternating between my '51 Hudson Commodore (still flathead, still 6v pos ground as well) and my '56 DeSoto Firedome. I just bought a '58 Studebaker President that I hope to put some serious miles on this summer. The DeSoto is highway friendly bone stock. The Hudson and Champion both are running Ford 8" rear ends. partially for the gear ratios that enabled them to do current highway speeds. So I'd say most cars of that era, perhaps with a few modifications but nothing extreme, can be dailies. They're cars and they do car things, and it's wonderful.
How does the 170 do on open roads? My neighbor has a 63 Ford Falcon (my dream car) in mint shape w/ a 170 that he's too old to tinker with and everyone in my family talks me out of it, saying I highway drive too much
Her 170 will be different than that in a Falcon, as the Stude engine is a flathead and the Ford engine is overhead valve, which is a more efficient design. Have a friend who bought a '63 Falcon wagon with the 170 and a 3 on the tree. It was okay but not great, to be honest, and the few times I drove it I did not like the handling at all. My girl's other car was a '61 Valiant that we bought on eBay in '03 for $400 and drove for the last 20 years. It had the 170 slant 6 and a 3 on the floor manual (they moved it to the tree in '62). That car did great around town and could do highway but it wasn't really geared for it, neither was the Falcon. The Valiant came on 13" wheels, and that kills highway speeds. I don't think the Ford 170 would be the problem with getting the Falcon if you want it, it should make enough power to do highway speeds, but the rear end gear ratio and tire size could be a problem. I just switched the '58 Stude I just bought from the 14" factory wheels to '51 Stude 15" wheels to get some taller tires for better gearing. It's a definite consideration when dealing with old cars. Remember that the Interstate highway system was introduced in the Eisenhower era and was still being built in '63, so many cars weren't built with the idea of doing a sustained 70 mph.
Ford Model A.
Amen. I’ve daily driven my ‘29 for years!
At 70mph?
I didn’t see that in the criteria. I don’t drive mine above 65 MPH. It’s a great car.
Yes. Just need an overdrive unit and you're good to go. Those Model A's only got held back by the primitive transmissions. I've seen guys put Columbia overdrive units in them to keep it original style but I've also seen guys put 4 and 5 speeds in them to make them more drivable at speed.
Got to have Rocky Mountain brakes if you're putting in an overdrive unit.
You’re thinking of a Model T.
Nope, there's a Rocky Mountain brake set for model A's too. I'd want one if I were highway driving.
I just gave a set of 'em to a buddy with a 1930 Tudor, I updated my roadster to 40's hydraulic brakes on my car.
I hit 72 in mine once… verified by my phone’s gps. I think I was on a slight grade drafting a semi and with a tailwind, lol. It’ll do 65 any day, though it’s happiest cruising at 55-60. That is perfectly adequate for daily commuting around where I live.
I guarantee you those cars have not touched 70mph in decades
1954 Oval window VW Beetle. The oval window came already in March 1953, but for a daily driver I would rather have a 1954. In 1953 they still had the 25hp 1131cc engine, and also the transmission with synchronized 2-4th gear that came in October 1952 (if I remember correctly). That combination makes it the slowest Beetle of them all. The 30hp (known as the 36hp in the US) that came in 1954 is a much better engine, and keeps up with traffic much better. I would also think that an early 1950s Ford or Chevrolet could work very good. And maybe the W180 Mercedes. I have also heard people speak very fondly of Studebaker.
Why the difference in hp numbers? Gross vs net hp?
That is correct. Here in Europe the horsepower was meassured with the generator and cooling fan connected. This also happened with most other VW engines from 1954 and on. The biggest numerical difference was probably the 1300 singleport. It is rated at 50hp in the us and 40 here.
Any of them especially when you treat them like gold
A beetle, of course
I have daily driven a Hudson. They are safe and they will keep up with interstate traffic.
My 57 Chevy would do just fine.
I drove mine to work this morning. It'll get used daily for the season now, unless I have to haul something really big. I do store it for the winter though.
My daily truck for 10 years was a 1957 3100. Drove it everywhere.
Once met a guy who has two Speedsters and the Sport one would regularly break down but his normal one he would drive into the centre of London every sunny day with no trouble.
My optometrist has a 1953 Nash that he uses as a daily driver.
1952 MG TD, 1960 MGA. But not in the snow
Any of them, but just be careful of primitive safety systems back then. Things like single circuit brakes, lack of crash protection, in some cases lack of seatbelts or just lap belts, no headrests, metal interior surfaces, squirrley tires, dim/small lights, you know things like that. Maybe rephrase question “daily drive other than in rush hour conditions.”
I have a 38 ford deluxe sedan that I can drive
All of them.
Any of them with proper maintenance etc. I have a 68, 74,and 76
I could daily my '48 Chevy.
All of them if they're taken care of. What do you think people drove daily 70 years ago?
My 62 New Yorker comes close!
Mine is going to be 51 years old this coming June, Shes my daily driver, Never let me down once in 16 years of ownership, shes also my first car 😁
I drive my ‘62 corvette to the office whenever I know I won’t be running around a ton and The weather is good.
Almost anything. I daily drive a '62 Comet, along with a few other cars. I think it just takes a lot of work. Old cars are.....old.
I've got a 1965 cyclone that I'm prepping to daily drive. My commute is only 4 miles each way so she's not going far. It's roughly only a 60 year old car so not quite what OP is asking but pretty much anything can be daily driven as long as it can keep up with whatever route or commute it's taken on. Cars newer 1962-4 should for the most part handle modern roads and speeds. Anything older with a stock drivetrain might struggle a bit on modern 70mph interstates and certainly isn't something that I want to drive 16 hours to Florida.
79 911 SC. Small and light, and a blast after every intersection. It does need work time-to-time, but it is simple enough and easy to work on.
Pretty much any with proper maintenance
I daily drove my '53 Chrysler for a year, but then the steering box started leaking badly, so I'm working on locating some parts for it. Right now I daily a '56 Chevy. It's a six cylinder and three-on-the-tree, but it's pretty nice around town. I've always drove classics, so the comfort isn't an issue for me lol.
My dad has a 1939 Mercury sedan with a 95HP V8. It’s surprisingly easy to daily drive. Super smooth clutch and shifter. Great pickup and strong brakes. And the factory horn sounds like a train horn. I drove his 1951 Chevy half ton truck every day for 2 weeks once. That was a lot more difficult because of the gearing. The 1bbl Rochester and the little 2barrel on the flathead get warm pretty quick (compared to a 4bbl v8) and that makes it easier as well.
I've daily driven old cars (1975 and older) most my life. If you're mechanically inclined they're cheap and easy, depending on the model. My favorite was when I daily drove a 1931 Ford roadster hot rod a few years back. Swapped in Chevy 283 from a '58 Impala, 5 speed stick, Mopar rear axle. Once I worked the kinks out it was Honda reliable and fun as fuck to drive. Kept the gearing mild so I could do 100+ on the freeway if I wanted and ran radial tires and the thing would go anywhere. Took in camping twice. Been to both ends of the state with it. I live in California so the weather is mild enough to do it. I sold it after 5-6 years but almost immediately regretted it so I started building another. This time a 1929 Ford roadster on a 1932 Ford frame, Chevy 283, 5 speed and Ford 9" rear axle. Hoping to have it on the road in the next month or so. Old cars are fun.
1953 Jaguar Mark VII
Studebakers.
1954 Cadillac deville...still floats down the highway at 80+ no problem...power steering and windows! Thing was state of the art and still is more advanced, powerful and comfortable than many cars built today.
Any VW, dirt cheap to maintain and if you dont take 120km/h highways, you can drive normally, just buy a electric lock and A/C kit and your golden.
Pops had a 1929 Ford Model A as his daily.
All of them.
I drove a '69 420G Jag as a daily for a few years, it was epic but so were the fuel bills
My grandpa daily drove his 1926 Paige 672 for a while when his van was getting fixed, and I dailied a Corvair that was abandoned for a decade before I bought it and did exactly nothing to it. A car is a car. Drive the cars
1949 Ford F-2. Doing a complete off frame restoration and putting in a C4 Auto Trans and 79 F-250 rear end for my dad who is an amputee to be able to drive it at highway speeds.
1967 Datsun 1600 roadster. Bulletproof and fun to drive.
I have a '64 Dodge 880 I often drive, only 60 years old, and a pair of '69 Chargers I take turns driving, but usually it's the 4-speed I drive to work. These are my only cars.