Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I want a 1930s driver - is that impractical?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The problem is it's probably a question with no answer. It's always going to be true that you'd rather have something newish for every day use and keep the old-timer for pleasure driving. Who wants to drive something special in rush hour traffic anyway?
There are a few hills, but as long as I have an engine that's torquey enough at those speeds, I'd be fine. The oldest car I've logged much driving time on is my '57 DeSoto, so I can't comment on how anything much older would perform as a daily driver. But as long as the curves aren't too sharp, the DeSoto keeps up quite well with traffic. In fact, the traffic's usually too slow for it!
6 cylinders or better
self-starter (no crank)
hydraulic brakes
So let's see...self-starter was in 1912 on up...hydraulic brakes at least 1924 on up, and of course 6 cylinder cars were before that....putting all this together, however, so it seems to me that a late 20s, early 30s medium-price car would be your earliest practical everyday auto. Something like a Buick is affordable and a very nice driving car in that time period.
1920's cars = Synchromesh transmission at least on 2nd and 3rd gears,closed cars (side curtains and touring car tops can be difficult to manage if weather turns nasty)and finally, a decent defrost/heater setup.
1930's cars = Overdrive transmission or free wheeling feature.
The straight eights were bulletproof.
Didn't they have a 4-speed HydraMatic for a few years in the late 50's?
I don't know why Buick chose Dynaflow....I guess in those days inter-make rivalry at GM was pretty strong, and there wasn't the shared platforming we have now. But the Hydramatic was much superior to Dynaflow or Powerglide (wasn't the first Powerglide '53?)
I'm not sure about the Powerglide, but I think it came out a bit earlier than 1953. Probably not much earlier though. The only reason I say this is in my Chrysler history book, at one point it stated that Chevrolet was selling 1/3 of their cars with automatics, but Chrysler didn't even have one yet, and most makes wouldn't have one until 1954.
Starting in 1953 they made the one-two shift by themselves.
Buick never used Hydramatics and never used a semi-automatic. The Dynaflows worked like the early Powerglides. They were sluggish off the line but you could start in low and shift them to drive yourself if you really felt the need.
They were also very tough and reliable.
And, yes, Olds had a pretty crude version of Hydramatic in 1939. Like our host, I've never seen one but by 1941 they refined them and these were actually pretty common especially in '41 Cadillacs.
In 1953, a fire distroyed the Hydramatic factory. As a result, some Oldsmobiles came with Dynaflows and some Pontiacs had Powerglides installed. The factories also had to promote the hell out of manuals because of the shortage.
I don't know what Cadillac did.
Was it just too far ahead of its time, and they deemed it unneccessary and over-built or something? That could be the case, considering that the Chrysler Torqueflite was only a 3-speed, and Chevy used Powerglides up through the late 60's, didn't they? Didn't Ford have some 4-speed automatics in the 60's, as well?
You could bring the car to a stop without removing it from gear, but you had to depress the clutch to go from reverse to first or from third to first, and to shift from one/two to three.
By this time, late 40s, early 50s, GM was just starting to come out with modern cars, and by 1955-56, GM had just about walked away from all its competitors--and continued to leave them in the dust for most of the early to mid 60s...until Mustang and the Mopar muscle cars came along.
The early Hydro really banged off those shifts but the '56-up Hydro was smoother. I had a '61 Bonneville with one and the two-three shift was really the only noticeable shift.
GMC light trucks also used the Hydro, at least through the '50s, and their optional V8 was the Pontiac.
The early 3-speed that replaced the 4-speed in most applications was nothing like the later Turbo-Hydramatic. It was kind of a cross between the Hydro and Turbo with a low 2.98:1 first gear and a small torque converter. Second was a normal ratio, about 1.5:1 so the gap between first and second was as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Bonnevilles and Star Chiefs were the last GM cars to use the four-speed Hydro, through '64. Olds and the junior Pontiacs used the slim jim from '61-64.
I don't know of any Ford four-speed ATs at least for cars.
The Fluid Drives were pretty tough UNLESS a 16year old decided to see how fast he could get one to change gears! A VERY nice De Soto fell victim to a buddy of mine...too bad.
If you don't recall who Yeager is, he was the AF test pilot who broke the speed of sound.
The suspension on Model A's was similar to the Model T because most roads had not been paved and they had to take potholes that a modern SUV driver would consider rough country. You might call the Model T and Model A the first SUV's.
I recall my dad telling me about having to change tires three or four times on a 45 mile trip which took most of a day. But it was so much better than driving a horse-drawn buggy and having to stop for the night,then continue on the next morning. Yes, that's how long it took to go 45 miles in the old days.
That's why pictures of really old cars show some with several tires strapped on the back.
fowler3