Old Car Trivia..Wanna Play?

isellhondas

I was going to say 1973 but you may be right.

Yep, GM tried something that year. An airbag was, indeed available that year. I don't think many were sold. I did hear a funny story about two guys who were in one of those "pull your own parts" junkyards years later. They were removing some interior parts when the air bag went off.

I guess they ran a half a block, swearing in spanish the whole time. The guy who owned the junkyard thought it was pretty funny!

These guys probably had no idea what an air bag even was at the time!

speedshift

Was looking back at some previous posts and saw the conversation about '63 Tempests with the 326. Here's some trivia: how did that Tempest 326 differ from the 389, aside from the bore? Hint: it has to do with the transaxle.

I know the answer both from magazine articles and from personal experience. I had one, and it was the only car I ever owned that could understeer and oversteer at the same time--and often did. When I bought it it was making a racket from the bellhousing like a really bad throw-out bearing. I drove it home, ID'ed the engine and found out that the 326 had been replaced with a two-barrel 389. I brought it to a mechanic who actually made it work, something I didn't think was possible. I guess that was a fast car, but I never really wanted to find out. If the handling and brakes didn't kill you, the exploding transmission would.

On the other hand, a properly set up 326 Tempest could really run. There's a great road test of one in Car & Driver.

Had a friend in high school who acquired a red '62 Le Mans with four-speed and four-barrel. A great-looking car, and a strong runner while it lasted. Unfortunately he thought it was a Mustang, and soon scattered the transmission doing burnouts.

speedshift

Boy, nothing like a little rope-drive Tempest trivia to get the conversation started.

carnut4

In the interest of keeping this one going, here's a bit of trivia. Both these cars were offered in the 59 model year. Now, here's some questions:

1Which car had the longest bed capacity with the tailgate up?
2.Which make had the largest V8 option and how many cubes was it?
3.Which one had more rated horsepower, and what was it?
4.What was the only interior color offered on the '59 El Camino?
5.Which of these two pickups sold the most for '59?

carnut4

here. The answers are:
1.El Camino
2.Ranchero-352 c.i.
3.El Camino-315 h.p.
4.Gray
5.Chevrolet sold the most.

This was a fun topic, but interest seems to have dropped off a bit' like some other topics as well. Anyone out there? C'mon!
Ok I'll try one more-that's it.

Why was the 1936 Cord designated as the model 810 by the factory?

speedshift

Don't know, but I'll guess. It had a V8, so that's where the "8" came from. The "10" is harder to figure. They changed the name to 812 in '37, with the same displacement and horsepower, so that's not it. I give up. The number of dollars E.L. had in his bank account after the '36 redesign?

carnut4

Doesn't look like we have a lot of trivia players out there. The reason the Cord 812 was given that model number is because that was the date of the go ahead to build the car-August 10, 1935. Dumb reason. But then, I've often wondered where all those numbers from Chevy and GM came from. Things like Z28, F41, T37, LT1,LS7, etc, etc. Anyone know how all these numbers came about, other than that they were the factory procuction line numbers? Maybe noone cares...

speedshift

I'd guess that they're just random combinations of numbers and letters. Some of them "sing" and some don't, some were destined for greatness and others weren't. That's my theory and, by the way, I do care, deeply.

speedshift

I just remembered that the T37 was a stripped Tempest, available in 1971. The GT 37 was the performance version, the insurance special, available with the GTO engines. I guess the T stood for Tempest. Don't know about the other letter/number combos.

Mr_Shiftright

These are mostly just option numbers from the build sheets. It's a code that probably made sense to someone at the factory at one time.

I think the Cord story you are referring to is corrct except that is was for the 810's announcement on August 10th--which didn't come out I think until the following February. The 812 was the supercharged version of the 810, but I'm not sure of why that number was chosen...maybe they had ANOTHER August announcement?

For trivia to be fun it really shouldn't be "micro-trivia"...the answers have to have lots of general interest for people, I think...the size of boltheads or whatever isn't all that exciting to the general public, just to carnuts like us.

isellhondas

From this forum for awhile.

The Tempest "rope drive" driveshaft made the BEST prybar! Every shop tried to get a salvage one for that purpose.

Had one in the gas station where I worked. We used it everyday for something or other.

The owner just about put out a reward for it's return when it got ripped off one night!

paulnorton

I believe the Ford V4s had a balance shaft driven off the timing gears

speedshift

Just kidding, for now. How about this: what was the last year the fuelie 283 was offered in a Chevy sedan (not the Corvette)? What was its horsepower rating? Which transmissions was it available with?

By the way, I never answered the fascinating Tempest trivia question I posted. The '63 Tempest 326 had the same exterior dimensions as the 389, but you couldn't swap a 389 into a Tempest because the tail of the 389 crank was too short to meet the Tempest input shaft. Isell and I may be the only two people still living who remember that the '61-3 Tempest had a swing-axle transaxle much like the '60-4 Corvair. A bellhousing was bolted to the back of the Tempest engine, with clutch and input shaft, but the shaft connected to a flexible driveshaft ("ropedrive"), which connected to the transaxle. Because of this drivetrain, the '63 Tempest 326 had a unique crank with a longer tail.

I know this because I bought a '63 V8 Tempest with what sounded like the world's noisiest throwout bearing. After driving it home I ID'd the engine code and discovered it was a 389, not the stock 326. That rattling noise was the input shaft not meshing completely with the tail of the crank. I took it to my mechanic who did the impossible and got it to work.

By the way, that was the only car I ever owned that would understeer and oversteer at the same time. Quite a handful, especially in the wet. It was also the car on which I learned that a quart of ATF in the crankcase will free up a few ponies from a sludged-up engine.

speedshift

Okay, so I threw in three paragraphs of stuff no one wants to hear about, but someone out there must know (and care) when the last fuelie sedan was offered. We're talking Chevy here, everyone's favorite brand. First hint: it had fins.

carnut4

I looked in my Chevy books right after you posted this-couldn't find data on it. I wanted to say 1959 at first-I seem to recall reading somewhere that Chevy offered the hydraulic lifter 250 horse 283 fuelie in Chevy sedans that year. But the more obvious answer is 1957. So what was it? Glad to see some life in this topic. Hey, just for fun, go back to my post in May on the 59 El Camino and Ford Ranchero-got no takers on that question either. Any guesses? The engine question, at least, oughta be easy...

speedshift

Speaking of W engines, what was the last model year the 409 was available? What was the last calendar year it was produced?

carnut4

the 1965 model year, but only the first part-through the 64 calendar year. After that, the 396 was available in the big Chevies [and later on, the 65 Chevelles]. Interesting that you could find 65 Impalas on the road with both the 409 and 396 big blocks as their original engines. as an aside, what were all the different horsepower ratings offered on the 396 in 1965? You probably know this... Also-what was the last year Chevy offered the 283?

badgerpaul

1967 was the last year for the 283, it was replaced by the 307 as the standard V-8.

carnut4

for sure if the 375/396 was actually a downrated 425? Anyone out there know? And, I can't find performance numbers on how the Chevelle with the 327/350 compared to the 396/375...anyone know?
I remember looking at a brand new 65 Malibu SS on the lot, black on black, with the 327/350 and all the goodies. Man, did I want that car!! But 4000 bucks was out of my reach then...

speedshift

According to one source, both the 375 and 425 hp 396s used a solid lifter cam, with the 425 cam having a little more duration and lift. The 425 used a larger Holley 4v. Both had the big port heads and big exhaust manifolds. Another source says the SS 396s tested by car magazines "almost certainly" used a hot hydraulic cam. Another source says the '65 375 had a hydraulic cam with 342/356 duration.

The only performance figures I have for the 375 say it did the quarter in under 15 seconds at around 100 mph. But there's lots of road tests to look up: Car life 9/65; Motor Trend 7/65; Motorcade 9/65; Popular Hot Rodding month unknown; and an "eastern hot rodding magazine, name unknown". The 327/350 may be tested in the 12/64 Motor Trend. A 300 hp El Camino did 15.9 at 87, but I'd guess the 350 would be almost a second and 4 or 5 mph faster.

Just found a '68 Chevy II 327/325 that did 16.47 at 86 mph. Seems slow. A '68 Nova 396/375 did 14.5 at 101.1, which seems more like it.

isellhondas

I keep skipping over this forum! Heck, I'm the gy who started it!

It was interesting back in those days, the late fifties, early sixties. A person could order almost anything! You could have a '59 Chevy four door Biscayne with a 283 fuel injected engine, three speed on the column with overdrive, etc.

Very rare cars that probably still exist.

isellhondas

Are you sure?

Here's one...What year was power steering first offered by Chevrolet?

carnut4

I'd forgotten about this one, just like I forgot Chevy made a 400 on its small block. The Ford was the 400 "Cleveland" V8, brought out as a "smog" engine for the big Fords in 1971. Am I right? What was the last year for the 352 big block? And what was the last year Ford produced this 400 "Cleveland" V8? As for the power steering on Chevrolet, was it 1953?

isellhondas

Yep, it was 1953 and they are rare indeed. I've seen one of them. Somehow I thought the Cleveland engines used a different block than the others?

Now...the 352...hmmm...maybe 1964?

speedshift

Last year for the 352 was probably '67, at least for passenger car use, because they brought out the 351W in '68. In its last years it was a low compression 4 barrel with 250 hp.

My guess for the oddball small block is the 351M. I don't remember all the details, but I know it uses the tall 400 block. Built from maybe '74 on, replacing the 351C. Has the same bore and stroke as the 351C but the taller block means 351C intake manifolds won't fit. 400 intakes will fit, but there isn't much choice in the aftermarket.

Here's some FE trivia. For three years the 352 was the biggest engine offered in a Ford passenger car. The last year, you could order a 360 hp version that lapped Daytona at 150 in "stock" form. What year was it?

ajvdh

I think you're right about the 351M being based on the 400, but that would make it a "big block". "Smog" is the key word, though.

It was the 255, which showed up in some of the early Fox platforms. Teeny valves, and skinny bearings (low friction, don't 'cha know), and heads that didn't lend themselves to any sort of work rendered that puppy to the backwaters of blue oval history.

carnut4

It was 1960 for the 352/360 wasn't it? The Starliner body was perfect for Daytona. Always wondered why they dumped that body style, only to come back in 63 with the "fastbacks," which I thought were uglier than the Starliners. In 1961, the 390 became Ford's biggest motor.Didn't they come out with a 375 horse version that year?

speedshift

In 1960 Ford got back in the horsepower race. Some of the 352/360 parts were used the next year on the 390. 375 hp with 4 barrel, and I think it was 401 with trips. I think '61 was the first year a 4-speed was available. I'm pretty sure they used the Starliner roofline on some '61s, or it was a removable roof "option" on convertibles (but only those raced in NASCAR) or something like that.

speedshift

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the 255, but somehow I've never considered the 351M-400 a big block. I can see how you could call it one, but to me "big block" means something in the 750-800 lb. range like the FEs and the 429-460. That reminds me, the first Ford small block was 221 CID--that's another one that never caught on with the racers. Pretty soon it was a 260, then 289.

speedshift

The 410 was standard in the Mercury for a while in the late '60s. I think it had the 390 bore and 427 stroke, or 428 stroke. Chevy did the same thing with the 307--283 bore and 327 stroke.

The '69 Mustang probably offered the 200 and 250 sixes (250 is a stroked 200), 302W, Boss 302 (first year), 351W but not 351C (not until '70), 390, 428 CJ/SCJ (from mid-68). I think '70 was the first year for the 429. Tunnel-port 302 was a '68 engine as I recall.

Why all the engines? I'm not a Ford expert, but Ford was transitioning from engines that didn't breathe (351W, 390) to engines that should have breathed but didn't (tunnel port) or breathed too well (various Bosses). The 428CJ was a great street engine but old tech.

skidmarks

What was the last year the 454 was available in the El Camino?

dweezil

Reading through a Pop. Mechanics magazine from the 70's I saw a photo of a retrimmed AMC Hornet with Borgward badges and a Borgward engine to be built in Mexico-was it EVER? Or was this some prank played by some chulpecabre from So.of the border? I am genuinely curious,because I don't know what market they were attempting to hit.Any hits here? THX, Dave

Mr_Shiftright

The mating of a Hornet to a Borgward....what a terrifying thought! Are you sure you weren't watching old Frankenstein movies?

dweezil

an actual picture of one-a prototype? Probably a hangover from those Mexican "Aztec Wrestlers meet the Mummy" movies more likely.

netranger4

The Marmon,Lafayette and Premier cars were also built in Indianapolis. Living in L.A. in the late 50's there were a bunch of Borgwards and Lloyds and DKW's being sold to the unwary. The Lloyds looked like a compressed Crosley. The DKW's (Auto Union) had a 2-cycle, 3cyl engine and after smog regs came in were totally outlawed. Someone told me that Subaru bought the Borgward engine patents and still use the basic design.

speedshift

A Hornet with a Borgward engine? Talk about a lousy business plan. That straight six was the best part in that car. I know, I owned one.

andre1969

I'd guess that 1976 was the last year a 454 was available in an El Camino? That was its last year in passenger cars in general. Even though the El Camino and the GM intermediates upon which it were based continued that body style another year, I read that for 1977, the biggest engine that you could get in a Chevelle was a 350. 400 or 403 for the Le Mans, Cutlass, Century/Regal.

That's not to say a 454 won't FIT, in the later, 1978-87 El Camino ;-) I've seen a few of them at car shows.

-Andre

chaparral

What were the smallest and largest displacement V8s offered in the US under the hoods of a production car? How big and small were they? The reason I put the "since 1955" clause in there is because of the 1924 Pierce-Arrow 8-220, which was comprised of EIGHT 220-CID ONE-CYLINDER engines sharing one crank at a 90 degree angle. The unit made a piddling 450 hp.

carnut4

the GM 215 CI aluminum V8s of the early sixties would be the smallest, and the 500 CI Cad V8s of the seventies would be the biggest. In an American production car, that is...

egkelly

Who conceived these engineering oddities? I ask this because a V-4 configuration doesn't make much sense 9to me), EXCEPT FOR BEING VERY COMPACT.tHE MINUSES: A v-4 IS HORRIBLY UNBALANCED, AND THE CRANKSHAFT HAS INADEQUATE BEARING AREA. I suppose the compactness was necessary, given the small engine compartment. Were these reliable, and did anyone else make a V-4?

carphoto

I think the Taunus, a German Ford of the 60s had a V4 and I believe there was a V4 Lancia but it had such a narrow angle that it only had one head.

tiffdif

How are the engines of the 1999 Land Rover and the 1962 Skylark related?

isellhondas

Kind of funny. Buick had a few problems with these and only used them from 61-63. My parents bought a Buick Special in 1962 which they later gave to me. I drove the living daylights out of it and sold it with 80K. Never any engine trouble..the Dual Path automatic was another story. Ran into the buyer in a restaurant four years later. He still had it and reported no problems with something like 120K on it.

Still, they were problem prone. Mechanics of the day HATED them and called them junk.

So I guess it was fitting that the Brits would buy the engines from Buick!

The Land Rover engine has been modified over the years to be sure, more emmision stuff, fuel injection etc, but the basic block and internal parts are pretty much the same.

Mr_Shiftright

Rover and Buick....the Brits worked and worked on it and made a basically marginal engine fantastically mediocre...and it only took 25 years! Can't blame them, though, V-8s are not really their game. Remember the Daimler Dart SP250?

Didn't Studebaker make a "bearcub" V8...at I think 228 CID? But you know, that might have been just before your 1955 deadline!

bhill2

OK, I've got a moderately obscure one for you. Traditionally, the low-line Studebaker of the '40s and '50s was the Champion. But for a couple of years in the mid-50s they brought out an even cheaper line. I mean, this sucker was bare. I don't even think you could get power steering, and may not have been able to get an automatic. Anyway, name it. A hint would be that the name would probably be considered politically incorrect now.

badgerpaul

It was the Scotsman. It was about as stripped as a car could get.

bhill2

Congratulations, you are absolutely right. I had a friend whose father bought one of those because "It will get you there just as well as the more expensive model." Only car I remember that seemed to be deliberately trying to look cheap. Even the dog didn't want to be seen in it.

speedshift

Yet they reskinned that same car in 1959 and turned out one of the sharpest compacts, the Lark.

Yeah the original Stude V8 was just barely over 200 cubes (232?), then they went to the 259 and 289 around '55. Lots of small V8s in those days: 239 Ford Y block, 241 Dodge, 250 Rambler, 256 Mercury, 260 Plymouth. Even the 265 Chevy was initially intended to be a smaller displacement.

Speaking of the aluminum 215, there's another engine based on that design, the 300/340 engine used in the '64-7 Skylark. In '64 the heads and intake were aluminum, and even the 340 used the same size valves as the 215. One reason no one ever wrote a song about the 340.

andre1969

...ultimately spawn the Buick 231 (3.8) V-6? I know there was a 225 V-6 that was a 300 with 2 cylinders lopped off, American style. It had an identical bore x stroke (3.75 x 3.40, I think). The 231 is 3.80 x 3.40, which I always suspected was just a bored out 225.

So, in a way, I guess the current 3.8 is another offspring of the old aluminum 215 V-8?

-Andre

speedshift

Well, the 215 came first in '61, followed in '62 by the 225 V6 which I think was based on the 215. That's just off the top of my head. Wait a second, I've got a book on V6 performance around here somewhere.

Okay, it says both V6 and V8 came out in '61. The V8 was designed first, then six months before introduction date GM decided it needed a cheaper engine so they chopped two cylinders off the 215, bored and stroked the result and out came the 198 V6. It was bored and stroked to 225 CID in '64, when the 300 also came out. Both engines are offshoots of the 215, which is why they have the same bore and stroke.

The V6 was re-introduced in 1975 as a 231, a 225 bored out so it could use the same pistons as the Buick 350. During the '80s it also came in 252 and 183 displacements. The Buick 350 was a bored 340 (itself a stroked 300) with much-improved heads similar to the Buick 400/430/455.

The 3.8 has been thoroughly massaged since this V6 book came out in 1982--thin wall casting, improved heads--but it's still based on an engine that was probably on the drawing boards around 1959.