Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

1134713481350135213531574

Comments

  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,637
    edited December 2012
    Yes, you're right, the ultimate problem was finally found to be the oil pump--but it manifested itself through noisy lifters and spun bearings--I think the pump allowed the oil to cavitate---not good! These were just a few of the many other problems with the 55-56 Packards, and coupled to being tied to the walking corpse of Studebaker at that time, this deadly combination meant one of them had to go. Given how few cars Packard sold, it would have been mighty hard to turn the company around.

    Packard had hard luck all around. Had the 352 worked out, and had not Chevrolet introduced the small block at the same time, who knows--Packard might have gotten a lot better publicity for their new engine.

    But there comes a time in an automaker's lifespan when even the best publicity isn't going to save it---especially when the Big Three is gunning for you. They'll just undersell you until you croak.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,446
    Over on 'Mystery Car Pics' someone is looking to ID some 50's MOPAR's. Interested?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,584
    I just took a stab...hopefully it helps out some. Shame that '53 DeSoto Adventurer concept never made it to production. That was a nice looking car. And, despite the close-coupled look, was supposedly a fully functional 4-seater. That other concept, the convertible that I believe is a 1955 Chrysler Falcon, looks sorta like George Barris's inspiration for "The Car"! Way cool in my book, but I doubt if too many would have bought it. But then, you never know...good taste didn't always prevail in the 50's.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,446
    The 392 is back in some of the SRT models.
    A kid around the corner has one in his new Challenger.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,584
    The 392 is back in some of the SRT models.
    A kid around the corner has one in his new Challenger.


    And, in a similar vein, the more common 5.7 "Hemi" (technically, they're all "pentroofs") is a 345 CID, same as the 1957 DeSoto Adventurer. Which, incidentally, was the first domestic passenger car to offer 1 hp per cubic inch standard, and in a "streetable" car. Chrysler actually broke that barrier in 1956 with the optional 355 hp 354 Hemi in the 1956 300B, and Chevy hit it in 1957 with the 283 hp 283 CID fuelie. However, the Chevy engine, the 355 hp version of the Chrysler 354, and the 390 hp version of their 392, were all optional engines, and came with a little disclaimer that said they were intended for the dragstrip only, and NOT intended for everyday street use.

    Curiously, DeSoto never chose to capitalize on the whole 1 hp per cubic inch thing..
  • Racing wasn't their image in 1957, at least not street racing. Chryslers were still viewed as cars for mature adults---the Chrysler was the Lincoln or Cadillac, the Desoto was the Buick and the Dodge the Olds and Chevy perhaps---or something like that. Chrysler's big brag was 'engineering'.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,446
    The 3800 is just an SBC with 2 cylinders cut off, so I feel like that's a duplicate entry.
    I'm sure there are better picks than Ford's Mod motor, but they are pretty legendary for longevity in Livery/Police usage and can make great power Ford GT/Mustang GT 500.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,584
    For DeSoto at least, 1957, to take a premature page from Oldsmobile, was "not your Father's DeSoto". And, like Oldsmobile, it would prove to be their downfall. A lot of new buyers were lured in that year, but quality was so bad that it burned them enough that it would be ages before they'd pick another Chrysler product. And at the same time, it burned the DeSoto faithful, who were accustomed to sturdy, reliable cars.

    And, for the 1 hp per cubic inch Adventurer, it really begs the question. If they weren't going to advertise it, then why the hell build it?! :confuse:
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    edited December 2012
    The 3800/Buick V6 was not derived from the SBC, instead from a cast iron version of the aluminum Buick V8:

    "The first engine in this family was introduced in 1961 for the 1962 model year Buick Special with Buick's 198 cu in (3.2 L) engine, the first V6 in an American car. Because it was derived from Buick's 215 cu in (3.5 L) aluminum V8, it has a 90° bank between cylinders and an uneven firing pattern due to the crankshaft having only three crank pins set at 120° apart, with opposing cylinders (1-2, 3-4 and 5-6) sharing a crank pin in, as do many V8 engines. The uneven firing pattern was often perceived as roughness, leading a former American Motors executive to crow "It was rougher than a cob.""
  • bragging rights---big car, big power. I suspect the 1 HP per cubic inch was incidental, in the sense that it was a secondary goal to that of getting a very high HP rating in general. The big slogan in '57 was "The Mighty Chrysler" and of course "The Forward Look".

    the 300C was billed as "America's Greatest Performing Car!"

    But when it came down to technical stats and burning rubber, Chrysler Corp. didn't seem to emphasis that.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,584
    Holy Chrysler, I bought a chick car!! :surprise:

    As for power and bragging rights, DeSoto actually did stress that in their ads. Oddly though, they chose to showcase a Fireflite 4-door sedan.

    And notice the ad mentions the cheap Firesweep, the mid-range Firedome, and the top line Fireflite. Yet, it says absolutely nothing about their flagship, the Adventurer! It's almost as if DeSoto was ashamed of it!
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    Wasn't there a Dodge or maybe DeSoto called "LeFemme" or something along those lines?

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,584
    Yeah, there was a La Femme trim package that was offered on the 1955 and 1956 Dodge. I think they only offered it on the Custom Royal Lancer hardtop coupe, but not sure. Wikipedia says it was a $143 option, wasn't widely promoted, and they estimate about 2500 were built over the two year period.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    I seem to remember seeing one pop up on a Mecum TV show or something like that. Neat idea, probably wouldn't fly today. I guess not so much back then either with only 2500 over two years.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,068
    What about the "Cleveland" engine which I always heard was superior to the Windsor?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,118
    edited December 2012
    The moral of the LaFemme fiasco is that you can sell a man's car to a woman, but not so much the other way around. That's assuming that cars are associated with gender, which is probably not really the case. The reason that women buy cars associated with masculinity in significant numbers may just be that women appreciate the performance attributes of these cars, just as men do. Maybe the reason that men buy more high performance models than women is more related to pay inequality than testosterone.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,068
    Didn't see any rust on this example. Either it was extremely well cared for in this climate or this car came from somewhere other than the snowbelt.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,068
    image

    I dunno, but Marge loves her "F" Series Canyonero!

    There was an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer accidentally buys an "F Series" Canyonero, which is the ladies' version of the SUV. He refuses to use it and gives it to Marge. Marge is at first, scared to drive it, but she quickly becomes full of road rage and is sent to traffic school by Chief Wiggum.

    I doubt you'll see many macho guys in one of these either!

    image
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    "What about the "Cleveland" engine which I always heard was superior to the Windsor? "

    Yep, the 351 Cleveland (called the "335 series" internally by Ford) had bigger ports than the 351 Windsor (among other things), here's some info from wiki (note that 2V and 4V refer to 2 and 4 bbl carbs, not number of valves):

    "The 335 series, although sharing the same bore spacing and cylinder head bolt pattern, was very different internally from the somewhat similar-looking Windsor series. The 335 Cleveland used smaller 14mm spark plugs in one of two different cylinder heads, both with 2 valves per cylinder. The '4V' heads had larger ports and valves than the '2V'. Both had the valves canted to the sides in a "poly-angle". The '2V' head had an open, almost hemispherical-shaped combustion chamber while the '4V' sported a quench-type combustion chamber. The Cleveland has a square-shaped rocker cover while the Windsor has a more rounded cover. All 335 covers are secured with 8 bolts; the Windsor uses 6 bolts.

    The radiator hose locations differ between the Windsor and Cleveland engines; the Windsor routed coolant through the intake manifold, with the hose protruding horizontally, while the Cleveland had a dry manifold with the radiator hose connecting vertically to the cylinder block above the cam timing chain cover.

    The 335 uses large main-bearing caps, allowing 4-bolt attachment on some engines. The oiling sequence does not route the oil supply to the main bearings first, and some critics fault this. However, for all but the highest level of performance applications, it has not proven any less reliable than the Windsor line."

    Makes you wonder why Ford had both series of small block engines at the same time... :confuse:
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,023
    Makes you wonder why Ford had both series of small block engines at the same time

    No worse than GM....

    According to Wiki the Cleveland was supposed to take the place of the larger Windsors. It just never happened and the Windsor continued on.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

Sign In or Register to comment.