Ah, the precursor to the Ford Expedition and just as safe. Grammy needs a speed governor with her 55.
I’ve always been interested in those who spread their impressions about old car braking capability, but most of them have not recently driven one of these older cars. I own and regularly drive several “older” cars that I have restored including a '31 Ford Model A, '56 T-bird, and a '66 Mustang - all were restored to original condition INCLUDING the brakes. That being said, I can tell you that all my cars, with the exception of the Model A, have plenty of braking capability required for “today’s” roads. To imply that drum non-disc brakes aren’t safe is just plain not true - evidence any news story to the contrary - you can search til blue in the face and probably not find a single incident where an older car was involved in a crash because their brakes were not modern enough for today’s traffic. It is an interesting theory that just isn’t true.
I’ve no doubt that it was a comfortable and easy to drive vehicle. But I also have no doubt that it lacked air bags, crush zones, seatbelts, side impact door beams, brakes that didn’t disappear when wet (it had drums), headrests, and countless other safety and comfort features. It probably had to be wrestled around highway ramps also, while leaning at a dramatic angle.
But I myself may have done mom a disservice. She might prefer a new Mustang over a new PT Cruiser.
Remember, we’re talking about a 75-year old who hasn’t driven a car like this in, oh, 40 years. An owner such as you, who has been driving one for years, is aware of the capabilities and drives accordingly. Much different that the situation we’re discussing. My '72 Duster had average brakes for the time (non-power, all drum), and I remember having to drive accordingly.
A friend of mine owns a 1957 Chevrolet. It has not been restored, and it’s still in great running condition. As long as you’re happy with the car, and you have a mechanic OK it before purchasing, you’re golden.