[ Login ]

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

Three Into Two Won't Go; Wings to Bermuda; Судьба диверсанта; Irish Wish; Flash(s); Tout le monde ment 2; Le crime lui va si bien; Ripples: 55 to Get Ready; Répercussions; Droit de Regard; Põlev maa; Pollos sin cabeza; The Bad Seed Returns; Yırtık Niyazi; The Bad Seed; (more...)

1930 Lincoln Model L Sport Pheaton [176-A]

1930 Lincoln Model L [176-A] in God's Little Acre, Movie, 1958 IMDB

Class: Cars, Convertible — Model origin: US

1930 Lincoln Model L Sport Pheaton [176-A]

[*][*][*] Vehicle used by a character or in a car chase

Comments about this vehicle

AuthorMessage

vilero ES

2011-09-30 20:30

[Image: GodAcre00008.jpg] [Image: GodAcre00006.jpg] [Image: GodAcre00007.jpg] [Image: GodAcre00011.jpg] [Image: GodAcre00020.jpg]

Lateef NO

2011-09-30 20:41

I think it's a Lincoln Series K Phaeton (around 1931): http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/l/31linKphaeton1_PaulTrentham.jpg

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-09-30 21:20

Yes, definitely a Lincoln but hard to date accurately. Need some closeups of similar cars to get the exact year.

-- Last edit: 2011-09-30 21:29:11

DAF555 SE

2011-09-30 23:57

It would be a 1930 Lincoln Sport Phaeton [L], introduced in october 1929 and built only on the last year of the L chassis. Model 176-A. Similar to the Tonneau Cowl Sport Phaeton, Model 176-B, but there´s no tonneau cover on this one. Both were part of Lincolns standard line of bodies.

somename US

2011-10-01 00:16

It's a 29 or 30 Model 176-A Sport Pheaton; you can tell by the way the doors are hinged. Quite rare; only 92 and 53 built in 29 and 30 respectfully.

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-02 11:05

This is a Model L not a Sport Phaeton. Sport Phaeton is the body style! Check all of the other Model Ls - every Lincoln from 1922 to 1930.

-- Last edit: 2011-10-02 11:06:41

DAF555 SE

2011-10-02 17:12

It is indeed a Model L, but that is a designation used internally for the 1923-30 models. The cars produced by Leland from late 1920 and up till Ford bought the company were not designated L. Ford produced the cars without changes through 1922 modelyear and introduced this designation from 1923 models. Only internally, towards customers the cars were named by their bodystyles. This was common practice at the time, a large part of the manufacturers did the same.

This is the way the cars were promoted when new, not by internal codes for chassis or body styles. These codes are indeed helpful in many ways, but they are not in any way part of the cars name.

For the moment we have only one field for these codes, named for chassis designations and introduced here originally to be used on BMW and Mercedes, since it´s often hard to determine exactly which model it is without reading the badge, but the W-code or E-code can usually be determined.
For other cars there is now entered either chassis codes or bodycodes depending on make, sometimes a combination of both. Hopefully we will have a separate field to enter bodycodes in the future.

Anyway, for these Lincolns the L belongs in the chassisfield and nowhere else.

-- Last edit: 2011-10-02 18:54:08

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-02 19:48

DAF 55 what do you propose to do with the other 73 Model Ls? If we are to use the body style for 1920s cars as someone (who?) else who slavishly follows advertising brochures, there are several thousand cars here which require recategorising. We had this came discussion with Cadillacs (V8s or Series 341 etc?). I stand by my original contention that the body style has no place in the Model box.

-- Last edit: 2011-10-02 19:51:40

DAF555 SE

2011-10-02 20:54

They should of course be corrected, a large part of them were not entered in the database as Model L in the first place. Some of them were, like some Cadillacs were entered with internal codes in the name field. That could have been better before, but there are bound to be some inconsistencies in a database like this. The site is constantly improving.
But replacing all names promoted to the customers with internal codes used originally only by management and workshops, like you do, is not an improvement.

The codes are not to be removed, only moved to where they belong. In the section for codes, that section can certainly be improved, but the codes are still not names.

It is however common practice in car clubs, and netsites to mix up internal codes with names, often for practical reasons, just to narrow down exactly which model they´re talking about. But this is not a car club and we have worked out ways to keep names and codes apart. The tradition has been to try to narrow down the correct designation used for cars on different markets, naming these old cars like they were known to the customers that bought them would be the same.

It can´t for obvious reasons be following original adverts like a slave, they´re not in all parts consistent like most other historical documents, but they show us how the manufacturers wanted to promote their cars.

DynaMike NL

2011-10-02 20:58

Still we're trying to identify the cars as they were officially sold, not as we see them retrospectively, aren't we? It's a bit the same with my favorite: the Panhard Dyna Z. They were sold (and listed here) as Panhard 54/55/56 etc., even though nowadays every Panhard connaisseur speaks about a Z1/Z5/Z12 etc...

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-02 22:08

It is my opinion that we should not be bound by the dictates of the manufacturers' advertising departments whom we all know live in a totally different world from the rest of us - they would have us believe that all of the cars were very long and low and that the people who travelled in them were very small!

Perhaps the cars of those makers who made only one model for a given period should have the model box left empty. Examples are; Cadillac from 1915 to the introduction of the V16, all LaSalles, all Lincolns from 1922 to 1930, maybe even Fords from 1908 to 1931 - during the teens and twenties Fords were just Fords. I would never countenance the use of the body style as a model.

DAF555 SE

2011-10-02 23:43

Leaving the namefield empty is not a good idea. Not only for the reason that it ignores how a number of manufacturers have named their vehicles through the last century, it also makes this site more difficult to navigate with an increasing number of vehicles that can´t be searched by their given names.
We have plenty enough of cars entered with only the make and the year since the clip from the film gives us no more to see than a part of the front. We can for instance see that it´s a 1958 Plymouth, but anything beyond that is imagination.
For them it´s better to leave without a name, but entering cars that can clearly be identified in detail without their given names doesn´t make much sense.

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-03 00:20

I think it is better to leave the model name blank where it is impossible to determine it. A Plymouth would be a good example. Often the year and make are obvious but due to the picture being blurry it is impossible to tell the trim level. Using the advertisers' jargon all 1936 Dodges should be Beauty Winner Sixes but it is simpler to homogenise them and call them De Luxes like the rest of the Dodges of that era - and not D2, D5 etc.

Dodge is a make that needs to be sorted once and for all. Even though there were two distinct eras in Dodge history - before and after the Chrysler takeover - it had a continuous history so all Dodges should be in the same make list. At present they are in two. I know that at this end of the world, even though the early cars were labelled Dodge Brothers, to their owners they are just Dodges, and because they only made one model - at least until the introduction of their first six unless you count the difference between Special and De Luxe in around 1925 - Dodge is another candidate to be just Dodge with no model. I have used Dodge Four when identifying them but that is not a factory designation - to the factory it was a Model 30.

All of the four cylinder Plymouths (1928 to 1932) also have no model name. I have a 1929 Plymouth and it is just a Plymouth.

-- Last edit: 2011-10-03 00:21:38

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-03 07:53

Read this page - http://www.lincolnownersclub.com/motorcars.html - the third paragraph. Quote "The Lincoln Model L, as it was known"....

vilero ES

2011-10-03 12:26

For the discussion:
- He have 7 Model L with Sport Phaeton added in the extra info field /vehicles.php?resultsStyle=asImages&yearFrom=&yearTo=&makeMatch=2&make=Lincoln&modelMatch=1&model=Sport+Phaeton&modelInclExtra=on&origin=&madein=&madefor=&role=

- In this page where you can find the Standard Specifications for pre war Lincoln http://classiccardatabase.com/prewar-models/car-models-L.php#Lincoln the cars are listed as L Series and, after this, if the car is Sport Phaeton, Victoria Coupe, Club Roadster, etc...

http://classiccardatabase.com/prewar-models/car-models-L.php#Lincoln

[Image: LincolnModel-L_SportPhaeton1.jpg][Image: LincolnModel-L_SportPhaeton2.jpg]

The page for the 1930 Lincoln L Series Sport Phaeton[176A] is Link to "classiccardatabase.com"

The page for the 1930 Lincoln L Series Sport Phaeton, TC [176B] is Link to "classiccardatabase.com"

In this page http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z12075/Lincoln-Model-L.aspx (look for Dual Cowl Sport Phaeton
Chassis Num: 60817) it says "This 1930 Lincoln Model L Sport Phaeton was offered for sale at the 2007 RM Auctions held in Amelia Island, Florida where it was estimated to sell between $100,000 - $125,000. This model, known as a Model 176A, has four doors and seating for four. Only 53 of these Sport Phaetons were built in 1930 and sold for around $5,000, a considerable cost at the time."

On the contrary this brochure from 1930 Lincoln just says "The Sport Touring Car" (as example) http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/lincoln/30li/bilder/1.jpg

If we follow the same way we use in the site for these /vehicles.php?resultsStyle=asImages&yearFrom=&yearTo=&makeMatch=2&make=Lincoln&modelMatch=1&model=Sport+Phaeton&modelInclExtra=on&origin=&madein=&madefor=&role= Sport Phaeton would go in the extra info field but, after this long discussion)... :??: :??:

DynaMike NL

2011-10-03 12:46

Thanks, Vilero. You gave perfect examples of the difference in denominating cars when they were new (like in the brochure) or retrospectively (when , when serial numbers or letters are used to classify old cars. It's about the same as with Mercedes-Benz: the [W123] was never sold as [W123], but just as 200, 200 D, 280 E etcetera. Nowadays it is much easier to speak about the [W123] to make the difference with a [W115] 200, but when new everybody knew that the 200 was the current model, so the code name wasn't used in advertisements or on the cars.
Of course we could chose to list cars as they are seen retrospectively, but in many discussions on imcdb we came to the conclusion that it would be better to identify the car by its official commercial name...

DAF555 SE

2011-10-03 17:52

It has been argued before, earlier this year, and the discussion is here: Link to "forum.imcdb.org"

The issue was, and still is, to keep internal codes away from the name field. Since we have a field to put them in, there´s no reason to enter them instead of names used commercially by a number of manufacturers. They can still be used, and provide us with vital info, so we´re not talking about deleting them. Just to have them where they belong.

But soon it became a discussíon about what could be accepted as a modelname, but that´s irrelevant. The manufacturers made a choice on that, no matter what we like or think about it today.

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-03 21:38

Lincolns and Cadillacs amongst others in the 1920s had a serial/model code eg L or 341-B but each body type also had its own number. When noting them here they should really have no model name because that is what they were generally known as - just Lincoln or Cadillac because there was no need to differentiate them from any other model in the maker's range - but for the purposes here it is easier to find them if we give them a Model or Series designation.

What do we do then with pre 1936 Buicks? The manufacturers codes were Series 40, Series 50 etc. That is what they were generally known as as well. Do we ignore that?? I will stick with referring to pre 1931 Lincolns as Model Ls - here and anywhere else. As with any make, the names of body styles are just that - body styles.

What we do need though, is a box for body number types where they are known. For example my information for early post WW2 Fords gives a series number and a body style number eg 1951 Ford Custom Deluxe Victoria Two Door Hardtop is a Model 1BA as are all 1951 Ford Custom Deluxes, but the Victoria body style number is 60. Later Fords often have no series/model number but do have a body number - sedans are usually 54A or 54B.

GM and Mopar cars generally only have one all encompassing number, although Chevrolets sometimes have a different number depending on whether it is a six or V8 - something usually not easy to determine visually.

We are indebted to those people who have preserved much of this information, back in the day. If they were all like the new broom that swept through Packard in 1955 then all historical archives would be lost. There are still those around who would rather all of this stuff was destroyed.

-- Last edit: 2011-10-03 21:57:02

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-03 23:46

I think the L model Lincolns should be list as Series L which ties in with more common general nomenclature, then Model used for the individual body numbers - much as Buick did in 1934 for example viz. - Series 60 for the series and Model 66-S is the coupe body style. Mid you, to add to confusion Buick, and the other GM makers, also used Style Numbers - http://www.supercarspecialty.com/stylebu.asp

Where there can also be some confusion is where a long standing maker, produces a retro style car in modern times using a body style as a model type. Fortunately there are very few of them.

European cars were usually differentiated by power output (PS, Cv etc), engine size or cylinder numbers - model names came later. Is there an upmarket European maker, that made only one type at a time, from the 1920s or '30s that causes DAF the distress that he suffers with Lincoln? Those I can think of were all noted by Type or Series (Bugatti Type 57, Delage CO). Did they advertise "The Bugatti Sport Phaeton"?

Should the name Silver Ghost be used as the model name for Rolls-Royces? I don't know the correct answer but I was under the impression that the factory used the horsepower designation (40/50?) in all of its literature.

Let's just keep it simple and homogenous and use a Series or Type where the car had no actual model name.

vilero ES

2011-10-04 13:21

I'm going to copy and paste my answer about this discussion I have left in forum's post "Commercial names versus chassiscodes/bodystyles". http://forum.imcdb.org/forum_topic-6269-43576.html#p43576

Well after this interesting discussion in /vehicle.php?id=437110 I see for (and only) the site a big problem.

Probably DAF555 opinion is the correct one but I see the site has followed the opinion stated by nzcarned.

For instance
DynaMike wrote Thanks, Vilero. You gave perfect examples of the difference in denominating cars when they were new (like in the brochure) or retrospectively (when , when serial numbers or letters are used to classify old cars. It's about the same as with Mercedes-Benz: the [W123] was never sold as [W123], but just as 200, 200 D, 280 E etcetera. Nowadays it is much easier to speak about the [W123] to make the difference with a [W115] 200, but when new everybody knew that the 200 was the current model, so the code name wasn't used in advertisements or on the cars.
Of course we could chose to list cars as they are seen retrospectively, but in many discussions on imcdb we came to the conclusion that it would be better to identify the car by its official commercial name...


But what we have in the site is just Mercedes-Benz W123 if we have not could ID the car as 200, 200 D, etc...
When I'm writing this answer there are 1100 W123 listed in 37 pages. /vehicles.php?make=Mercedes-Benz&model=W123&modelMatch=2&modelInclChassis=on

If we choose 'Make and Model' in display options, from page 1 to page 18 these Merc. are identified as 'just' Mercedes-Benz [W123] and we have not added (as a possibility) Mercedes-Benz Series-200 [W123]

I remember a very long and very well documented post about Lincoln vs. Continental as brand. Probably who wrote that post (I can't find it know) is completely right BUT the problem for the site is.....we would have to change more than a thousand models from 1956 to 198(0s) and we understand only 56 (and 57?) can be ID Continental as independent brand.

All I know now about cars I have learned here and I have any book where I can look for cars info. Just some tens of links where I get my info. So based on this, if we follow the proper ID based on the commercial name, am I right if we should have to change all Fords Model T into Ford (commercial name) and [T] in the chassis code field.?

For instance: This Ford http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford/1917_Ford/1917_Ford_Brochure/1917 Ford-04.jpg was sold as Ford Runabout but in the site we have any Ford Runabout as a model. We have 15 Ford Model T Runabout (as part of the model name) /vehicles.php?make=Ford&model=Model+T+Runabout&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=on and others 10 where Runabout is added in the extra info field and the model have been ID as Ford Model T /vehicles.php?resultsStyle=asImages&yearFrom=&yearTo=&makeMatch=2&make=Ford&modelMatch=1&model=Runabout&modelInclExtra=on&origin=&madein=&madefor=&role=

This site I use for my info ID these as Ford Model T Series + commercial name
http://classiccardatabase.com/prewar-models/car-models-F.php#Ford

And this position, I see, is the same for, in general, most of the pre-war vehicles we have in the site already listed. And they are, for sure, some thousands of vehicles we have identified using the model-series name, not the commercial one.

Certainly we have to lean to use the proper name for all the vehicles we have in all contributions but the same important thing (IMO) is the vehicles can be found by any user and by any visitor.

I think we all remember comments (from good experts we have) as 'My book (title) says.....' and other user says 'well, my book (title) says (something basically the same but something different)' and both are right.

In short, DAF555 and nzcarned are speaking about the same but using different words.

If we follow DAF's opinion (and perhaps it is the proper one) we should have to change the ID of some thousands of pre-war vehicles since they are ID based in the type model name and not in the commercial name that is added in the extra info field. Check any pre-war brand from USA.

As DAF555 says, probably in pre-war time, models were known as Runabout, Phaeton, Touring, Roadster,etc... On the contrary, actually most of vintage vehicles only can be found by their model-series name.

I think we are not trying to be the Nobel Vehicle Site. We can get one of the purposes of this kind of sites (to learn and show to others what we have learned, so they learn from us and, later, others we'll learn from they) using for pre-war vehicles the same rule we have followed for same previous vehicles already listed. That way we do a more uniform list of vehicles and, in short, we are using the same opinion stated by DAF555 but using different words. And none of us will be wrong.

Finally about the discussion /vehicle.php?id=437110 I would keep the ID as Lincoln Model L Sport Phaeton or change these into Lincoln L-Series.

We have 3 pages of Lincoln Model L /vehicles_make-Lincoln_model-Model+L.html and most of these with commercial name added in the extra info field.


About the Sport Phaeton, we have 7 already listed as Model L
/vehicles.php?resultsStyle=asImages&yearFrom=&yearTo=&makeMatch=2&make=Lincoln&modelMatch=1&model=Sport+Phaeton&modelInclExtra=on&origin=&madein=&madefor=&role=
and Sport Phaeton added in the extra info field.

If we call this /vehicle_437110-Lincoln-Sport-Phaeton-L-1930.html Lincoln Sport Phaeton [L] we have only one (this) on the site and it is the same as the others 7 I said above.


-- Last edit: 2011-10-04 13:22:04

antp BE

2011-10-04 17:05

vilero wrote I'm going to copy and paste my answer about this discussion I have left in forum's

But WHY ?? If I ask to discuss on the forum it is to avoid filling the database of the site with such discussion, so that should be debated there, not here...

vilero ES

2011-10-04 19:41

ant all my answer is referred to the model of this page and about DynaMike, DAF555 and nzcarned previous comments about it in this same page. Perhaps it would had been better say on the forum 'Here I copy and paste my answer I left on the site', because all my answer is about this exact model 1930 Lincoln Sport Phaeton [L] VS 1930 Lincoln Model L (or L-Series) Sport Phaeton and if its current identification is enough to change all previous we have on the site or, on the contrary, is this actual identification as 1930 Lincoln Sport Phaeton what should be changed.

DAF555 SE

2011-10-05 02:39

Yet another lengthy answer on this subject:
http://forum.imcdb.org/forum_topic-6269-43584.html#p43584

nzcarnerd NZ

2011-10-05 06:41

I will just reiterate that the body style belongs in the body style box. Re Continental, my opinion is that they should be put in with the Lincolns because Lincoln built them and they were just being pretentious trying to market them as a separate make - much as Mercury did with the Comet for only one or two years in the 1960s. They were all sold by the same dealerships. Continental is confusing because the name has been used by other vehicles - /vehicles.php?make=Continental&model=
In the same vein I wonder how long the Ram name will survive, or will people just keep thinking of them as Dodges? And is it Ram or RAM? Check the make page.

-- Last edit: 2011-10-05 06:42:47

DAF555 SE

2011-10-10 17:03

More comments: Link to "forum.imcdb.org"

Add a comment

You must login to post comments...

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising