60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords

argent

The Chrysler system was developed in collaboration between Chrysler engineering and Bendix Corporation, which I think was actually owned BY ChryslerCo. The program began in 1954 (I had to go look this up...). It was marketed -- briefly -- as the Bendix Electrojector system, offered on Chrysler performance cars (300s, DeSoto Adventurers, Dodge D-500s, and Plymouth Furys) in 1958. It was also advertised for 1957 Ramblers, on the AMC 327 engine, but I don't believe any were actually sold. Scarcely any Chryslers were sold with it, either. According to the DeSoto factory where the system was installed, some 35 300Ds, 12 Dodge D-500s, 5 DeSotos, and only two Plymouths got it, and almost all were retrofitted to twin four-barrel carbs (not clear if the owners got a refund on their $400 or not...). Only one fuel-injected 300D is known to survive.

The Bendix Electrojector was indeed electronic, using vacuum tubes for its controls -- it was the first of its kind. And the patent was sold to Bosch in the late 50s, not long after Chrysler's ill-fated experiment. The Bosch L-Jetronic system, used on Volkswagens and other European cars in 1967, was, I think, a descendant of the Bendix system, although it was transistorized, not vacuum tube operated. (The Bosch system used in VWs in that period was definitely electronic, not mechanical.)

Mechanical fuel injection was considerably older, of course, although I'm reasonably sure that the Mercedes 300SL was the first gasoline-powered passenger car to use it. And the Chevrolet and Pontiac systems of the late fifties, two different Rochester systems, were mechanical, NOT electronic.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, the Mercedes 300SL was the first production gas engine to use fuel injection.

Thanks for all that info, very interesting. I don't think the Bosch / Bendix system are much related because they seem so different, but perhaps the *principles" of operation are based on that...very well might be. Like comparing the first American VHS video machines with what we have now?

rea98d

"Like comparing the first American VHS video machines with what we have now? "

WHAT?!?!?! You mean all my old home movies won't play on my DVD player? I've been gypped!

Mr_Shiftright

hahaha...I was thinking of the analogous situation where the USA "invented" the first VCR but never put any energy into further development or marketing, and gave the market away to the Japanese. With fuel injection and turbocharging, it seems to be the same deal, that GM never developed either of these after introducing them in the 50s and early 60s as options (mostly non-working, but still, options). So it ends up that VW put workable electronic fuel injection into full production in 1968 and Saab markets the first full production Turbo sedan in circa 1979. GM could have beaten both to the punch, but I guess American buyers in the 60s wanted neither better fuel mileage or more power. Gas was cheap and HP was abundant.

andre1969

I think it was 1978 when the first 231 turbo was introduced, with 150 hp. You could get it in the Century, Regal, and LeSabre coupes. After a year or so it was bumped up to 165 hp. In 1980 it was also available in the Monte Carlo.

Pontiac also had the 301 turbo. I forget what its first year was, though. I think 1981 was its last. The 231 turbo lasted through 1989, when it was used in the 20th anniversary Trans Am.

I remember Consumer Reports testing a LeSabre turbo against an Impala or Caprice with a 305. I think the LeSabre was a little quicker, and got a little bit better fuel economy. In the long run though, its higher price probably didn't justify it over the 305, at least in that application.

Mr_Shiftright

The Corvair turbo system was clumsily designed, very inefficient, but the principle was there. Unfortunately, you got very little boost at very high RPM, just about the worst possible results for a turbo system.
Of course the big Chevys and Fords didn't need turbos, as they had high displacement engines with plenty of torque, at least through 1972 or so.

blh7068

"Pontiac also had the 301 turbo. I forget what its first year was, though. I think 1981 was its last. The 231 turbo lasted through 1989, when it was used in the 20th anniversary Trans Am."

Yes, the turbo found its way into trans am for 1980-81(1979 last year for 400/403) . Turbo 4.9 was dropped when the 3rd gen cars (82-92) debuted. Then in 1989,like you said turbo appeared on the 231 V-6 20th anniversary car.

argent

GM had both of the first two passenger-car turbo engines, both in 1962: the Corvair Monza Spider, of course, and also the Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire. The Jetfire used a turbocharged version of the 215 aluminum V-8, rated at 215 hp. Olds took a different approach than did Chevrolet. The Corvair turbo had a lower compression ratio (dropped from 9:1 to 8:1, as I recall) to prevent detonation, although that didn't do much for the flat-six's throttle response (probably a large reason why John Fitch's tuned, normally aspirated Corvair Sprint was faster than the turbo, despite less claimed horsepower). The Olds kept a 10.25:1 compression ratio, but added a water injection system that pumped a water-alcohol mix into the combustion chamber at full throttle to prevent detonation. That, of course, is a trick found on WW2 fighter plane engines, but when applied to an American passenger sedan owned by the typical driver who rarely even checks the oil, it had predictably poor results. So owners might let the injection tank run dry, or not notice that its lines had come loose. Or it'd inject the water/alcohol mix and there'd be detonation anyway. Or a conservative driver would go months without ever revving the engine high enough to really get the turbo spooling and the bearings would seize. So in all Buick's Skylark engine (which got 190 and then 200 hp from the 215 without the turbo) seemed a better bet, and it's not surprising that the Jetfire was dropped after 1963.

It wasn't until the fuel crisis years in the 70s when GM seriously tried again on turbo passenger cars, and there I think it was driven as much by desperation as anything else (whereas the early sixties efforts were more experimental).

Mr_Shiftright

Olds never even told the owners they had a turbocharger!

One problem with the Corvair system was that the turbo was upwind of the carburator I believe.

amazon

The first Bosch system for the larger markets was the D-Jetronic. The L-Jetronic was an electonic version that didn't come out until the late 70-s or early 80s.

argent

Oops, D-Jetronic, you're right.

Yeah, the Corvair had a "draw-through" turbocharger -- the carb was ahead of the turbo. Some people who modified their turbo cars replaced this with a "blow-through" arrangement (i.e., turbo into carb(s) rather than the other way around). The original arrangement wasn't particularly efficient in terms of maximum power output, but I think they were concerned with reliability more than power (both in preventing detonation and in controling cylinder head temperature).

When did Chevrolet and Ford start offering fuel injection again on their bread-and-butter cars? My recollection was 1980 or 1981, thereabouts.

rea98d

I think '83 for Ford. At least, that's when the full size LTD and Grand Marquis got fuel injection. '82 (the year mine was built) was the last year for the carbed 302 in the full sizers, after that they went to "Centralized Fuel Injection" or what Chevy called throttle body injection. I'm not sure on the year the CFI was dropped for a more conventional multiport setup, though.

andre1969

In 1981, GM offered FI on the 2.8 V-6 in the X-cars. It put out 135 hp, about on par with most base V-8's in the 5-liter range at the time. Just for comparison, the 2-bbl version of the 2.8 put out around 112 hp. In 1982, the 2.5 Iron Duke went to FI. The 3.8 was offered with FI for 1984 in the Ciera and Century, with 125 hp. In the RWD cars, you were stuck with a 2-bbl, and 110 hp.

Ford took the 302 to fuel injection for 1983, and the 3.8 V-6 in '84. The Escort could be had with FI in '83, and the Tempo in '85.

Chrysler started putting fuel injection on the 2.2 around '85 or so.

In comparison, the Honda Accord didn't go FI until 1985. The Camry had it from the get-go in '83 but its predecessor, the Corona, had a 2-bbl in '82. So the US was pretty competitive with the Japanese when it came to putting FI on their more mainstream cars. More upscale cars though, like the Cressida, 810/Maxima, and Z- had it for as far back as the book I'm looking at goes to...1977.

andre1969

...do you know what year the 302 in the big Fords went from 140 to 150 hp? I'm guessing that would be when they ditched the TBI for PFI.

ghulet

...the only model that had fuel injection was the SE-i (loaded, leather, sunroof) in '85, then from '86-89, only the LX-i and SE (offered in '89 only, iirc) had FI. The DX (like the '87 I own) and LX models had carbs until model year '90. Civics, with the exception of the Si models, had carbs until 1988.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, the Japanese were remarkably slow with FI--that always puzzled me. I guess they were getting the results they needed with carbs. I do recall though that 80s Japanese carburetors are DIABOLICAL to repair--best to just junk 'em and buy a new one at a mere $500 or so. Another reason it will be sayonara for most older Japanese cars when they break down.

andre1969

...about the 3-bbl used on Honda Accords. I think it was called a Mikuni or something like that? A buddy of mine had an '80 Accord that had a sticky throttle, which would give him a sudden acceleration problem from time to time.

The only thing was, the acceleration wasn't all that sudden, so whenever it happened, we'd all usually just laugh!

Would there be any feasible way to fit a simpler domestic 2-bbl onto an Accord, if you wanted a fairly simple fix on an older model?

rea98d

Not sure on the 302's horsepower change. I'll have to look that up.

argent

For my money, all of the electronic emissions-controlled carburetors of the 80s -- domestic or import -- are garbage. All the disadvantages of EFI (complexity, cost, difficulty of repair), with NONE of the advantages. ( I had an '85 carbureted Accord, a fine car in many respects except for the damned carb.) There wouldn't be any way to replace it with a domestic carb, at least not one that would be simpler (I suppose if you were feeling perverse you could adapt the carb from an Escort engine or something, but it would just present MORE problems), and for the costs and complexity involved it wouldn't be worth it.

kcwolfpack59

When I was growing up, Motor Trend used to test the Caprice, LTD and the Gran Fury on an annual basis. The editors said they got the most passionate letters from readers on these cars at the time, ( 60s-70s) I think the writers had to be very careful about making sure not to alienate brand loyal readers and most importantly, their advertisers by consistently picking one brand over the other.
It was funny reading how much these cars were alike. 0-60 times, weight,size, price etc, could be switched among the three and most readers probably would not notice. I loved reading such articles because these were popular cars then. My folks had Caprices and I was incredibly biased toward GM products.
I think Chevy had the styling edge from 61-64, then Ford from 65 to 70. Chevy from 71 thru 76. I thought my folks 74 Caprice hardtop was the best looking car on the road. As a youngster, I loved washing and waxing it (yes, really).
I never really cared much for the big Chryslers of that era until the '74 redesign. I think they looked more GMish then.
Our neighbor had the AMC dealership. I was such a car nut as a kid, my dad jokingly threatened to trade the Chevy in for the latest Ambassador if I was being punished.
Now, 12 mpg, spotty quality, and rust make all these cars undesirable daily drivers. I still seek out the big "belchfire broughams" and "queensize family trucksters" at the auto shows. They bring bring back pleasant memories of family vacations I took with my family in the 60s and 70s.

jerrym3

Styling is in the eye's of the beholder, but here's my .02.

61-Chevy gets the edge, but the Ford Starliner was a very attractive model

62-a classic style for Chevy in either the formal roofline or the "bubble top"

63-tough to call; Chevy had a "baby caddy" look, while the Ford 63 1/2 roofline did wonders for the car; Chevy dash was elegant; Ford interiors looked classy

64-Ford's year; Chevy styling went downhill (what's with the pieces of chrome running down the center of the hood and trunk?); Chevy dash still tops, while Ford's 500XL clamshell buckets and overall interior was nicer looking; Special Interest Autos stated that it was very difficult to judge the 64 Ford from the odometer; a 60,000 mile car could be a 160,000 mile car or even a 260,000 mile car; my 64 500XL has 207,000 and you'd guess it was 107,000.

65-66 Ford went elegant, but Chevy takes the styling lead; 2 dr Impala SS was a winner

67-tie; Chevy looked like it was "melting"; Ford was nothing to brag about

68-Chevy returns to the winner's circle

69-70 tough to call; Ford interior wins again (500XL); Ford's tunnel styling for the back window in some models was eye catching; Chevy rear window was concave, I think

71-72 Ford LTD Brougham 2 dr very elegant; rest of the line has slight edge over Chevy (I owned a 72 LTD Brougham; Ginger Glo (mettalic brown) with a dealer installed tan vinyl top, not the typical dark brown top; beautiful car; high back seats with some kind of special cloth interior, wasn't vinyl, but didn't feel like regular cloth; kind of satin texture; 400-2v; 3:25 rear; not too fast off the line, but got up and went after the strong 1-2 shift; 12 mpg in town was about the best it would do, but who cared?)

73-76 Chevy all the way; looked as if Ford forgot how to style a good looking car, especially the bumpers; looked like they were added on as a last minute over thought; (Government crash regulations)

Now, since the computer has a big say in styling, many cars look very similar. In the 50s-60s-70s the stylist ruled. Even when every car had to have trendy tail fins, they still kept a lot of originality in the design.

Miss the days in the 50's when the new cars were announced in the fall and, as kids, we would try to see the new models in the dealer back lots or through a small clear spot in the otherwise soaped up dealer's showroom windows.

ab348

I was born in 1955. My first memory of being in a car was my dad's '56 Crown Victoria, yellow/black/glass roof, around the time I was 3. He was a Ford man back then, had a '55, the '56 Crown, a '59, and a '61. The '61 was a bad car, extremely low-slung and softly sprung, it wallowed and bottomed out constantly. He then became a GM man.

He had '62, '63, '65, and '67 Canadian Pontiacs (built on the Chevy chassis with Chevy engines). I liked the '65 and '67 in particular. Then he went to a '69 Impala sport coupe that was like the '61 Ford all over again. Wallow city. Decision time.

We looked at a '71 LTD that I really liked, but my mom wasn't crazy about. That interior fabric was knit nylon, which some people called "panty cloth" back then. He liked the '71 Pontiac fullsizer, but the GM strike meant no cars available. So he moved to Chrysler, buying a '71 Monaco. That was a great car, but very different from the others: much firmer-riding, maybe a little bit noisier, but stout. I loved that car.

But it was too big, and after a few years, he decided everything was too big. He switched to Volvos, and never came back until just before he passed away, when he had a Dodge Dynasty.

I always got excited when I was in junior high in late September when the new models appeared. On the appointed week, one day the local paper would arrive being twice as thick as normal because there were multi-page ads for every make. The showrooms put on special events, with promotions, food and drink, personalities, the whole shebang, to get you to come out and look. We did that every year, making the rounds of all the GM, Ford, and Chrysler dealers one night after work during introduction week. How I loved that! The smells, the new styling, getting an armload of brochures at every dealer that I would take home and study harder than any textbook so I could give my folks a recommendation. Those were the days. I still remember a '70 Olds Cutlass Convertible sitting in the showroom at Bob McDonald Chev-Olds in Halifax, dark green with a tan top and tan interior. I thought that was maybe the best-looking car I had ever seen. But out of our price range.

From the perspective of 30-40 years distance, all of those cars were great.

carnut4

348-your post brought back alot of the same kind of memories-my Dad and I going around to all the new car showrooms to see the new models. I was 14 in 1960, so those trips for me were in the late fifies and early sixties. I remember, for example, looking at a whole lot full of brand new 57 Chevies, and going for a demo ride in a brand new, bright red Nomad. Earlier, when the 55s came out, my Dad stopped to look, and ended up buying one. We rode home that night in the salesman's Turqoise and White BelAir 2dr hardtop. I'll never forget the look and the smell of that car!
On the way to junior high on the school bus in Sept of 58, I saw the 59 Buicks for the first time. They looked so radical. Guess where we went as soon as I got home. The new Pontiacs were just down the street.
Those were the days of exciting new car intros-spotlights and all. I still have a couple plastic promo models of a 1960 Ford Starliner and a Falcon sedan that the dealers were handing out in limited quantities.
Now, I look at your typical 90s car and I don't even know what year it is. Like with Buicks, Hondas, Camrys, etc, I know which years they made a change-but otherwise-heck, they're all the same for years. No chrome, no flash, no hype, no bright colors--no fun.
Oh well, we have old cars to enjoy for that!

andre1969

Nowadays, it seems like you see spy shots, conceptions, and publicity photos of cars so far in advance that by the time they do get here, it's old news.

It also doesn't help that the buff rags like C&D, MT, etc hype them up as "new and improved", "paradigm shifting", whatever, and when the cars finally get here, there's no way in hell they can live up to the illusion.

Mr_Shiftright

So much sizzle, so little steak....

jerrym3

In the early 50's, as a 7-8 yr old kid, I had the opportunity to ride in the back of a 1950 Merc convertible from the Pa Pocono mountains to North Jersey. From that point on, I was a hooked Merc fan.

Couldn't take my eyes off the first 57 Montclair 2 dr that I ever saw, and will never forget riding around in my buddies' primed 1949/50/51 "lead sleds" in my high school years.

But, when I finally was old enough to drive in 1960, all the guys had GM or MOPAR cars, so I went with the crowd and turned to Oldsmobiles (54/57) and Chevvies (57), and the highlight of my new car buying, a 1965 Corvette.

Bought my first Merc in 1967, a leftover 1966 Cyclone convertible. (Getting ready for marriage, the 1965 Corvette had to go and the Merc was priced right.)

Hackensack, NJ police called me about 3 months after I sold the Corvette. It seems that the new owner left the car alongside the Hackensack river and the tide came up. Bummer.

Hated the 66 Merc, most likely due to the fact that I was used to driving a 327/300 Corvette instead of a 289-2v automatic intermediate.

Decided to buy a 1968 model, and was all set to go back to the General (442 or GTO), but couldn't accept the 1968 "new" GM intermediate styling, especially after the beautiful 66 and 67 models.

So, bought my second Merc: 1968 Cyclone GT fastback, Madras Blue (turquoise), white stripes, black interior, 302-4v, 4 sp.

Performed the following mods: added a 69 CJ428 black hood scoop/ram air filter and black hood tape stripes; Holley carb; replaced the 3:00 rear with a 3:50; removed the white tape stripe running between the front/rear wheels VERY CAREFULLY using a sunlamp; added Goodyear Polyglas GTs with Keystone Classic wheels (only got 11,000 miles out of the Firestone Wide Ovals); painted the four headlight rims black to match the Cyclone's black grille (car had looked like it was wearing glasses); disconnected the smog pump and plugged up the manifold holes; and replaced the 68 chrome sideview mirrors with the 1969 painted version.

Car was never fast (15.6 best quarter) but it was "peppy", could get upper 20's on the highway, and really stood out next to the General's intermediates.

If I had it to do all over again, I would have found some way to get married AND keep the Vette; however, of all the other cars I've ever owned, that 68 Cyclone GT is the one I wish I would have kept. (Third choice, 1957 Olds 98 convertible, which I repainted 1962 Chevvie Honduras Maroon.)

carnut4

about the magazine hype of the new models.
Even though we're a little off topic here, I wanted to add to that point.
Some very hyped new models from the past come to mind.
Starting with the 61 BOP compacts, and the "revolutionary" all aluminum V8-along with the Pontiac Tempest rear mounted trans and "rope drive" that allowed a flat floor. I remember seeing so many diagrams of that system I could have drawn it in my sleep! I think I did dosome sketches in social studies class.
Then there was the Chevy Vega-again, a "revolutionary" all aluminum engine, and "great handling." There was SO MUCH hype about this car before it came out.
There were many others of course, [Ford Fairmont, GM diesel, 74 Mustang, etc,etc] but the 1980 Chevy Citation comes to mind as one of the most hyped-maybe because it was such a new and different concept after a decade of gashog luxobarges like the 70s. Lots of promise--and disappointment.
No wonder I never bought any of these cars.

grbeck

...the Tempest, Vega and Citation did feature a lot of new thinking (at least for Detroit). The disappointing part was the execution.

And the Citation wasn't a technological dead end - most domestic cars did follow its layout. Poor quality control combined with new (for GM, anyway) technology led to numerous recalls and less-than-stellar reliability. By the time GM got the problems ironed out, the recalls and quality bugs had soured the public on the Citation and its X-car siblings. But when they debuted, the X-cars were exciting - they offered American style room and options with good fuel economy and better handling.

speedshift

The Pontiac OHC also got lots of hype back in '65. Of course you couldn't really blame the magazines. Hard to imagine Pontiac could stumble in those days.

I'd still love a '66 Tempest Custom (cleaner than the LeMans) pillared coupe with the 4 barrel Sprint option and a few hipo options--metallic brakes, quick manual steering. Throw on some Rally Is--they're probably worth more than the car. What a fun well-balanced car that would be.

Back on topic...what would be the Ford and Chevy equivilents? '64 Fairlane with Hi-Po 289, '66 Chevelle with 327/325? None of these cars were what the market wanted back then.

grbeck

An OHC straight six was not what most buyers wanted in the mid-1960s, especially in an intermediate car. I don't think Ford or Chevy ever "packaged" any of their intermediates to compete with the OHC Tempest.

Back to big Fords and Chevys - every time I drive through Steelton I see a 1965 Ford Galaxie convertible parked along the Main Street. The car appears to be a daily driver; it doesn't have classic tags and it certainly isn't babied.

The 1965 Ford Galaxie always interested me, along with the 1960-61 Starliner hardtop. In the November 1965 issue of Car & Driver, David E. Davis said that 1965 was the year when Ford "built a car that was clearly better than the Chevrolet."

I don't think the collector market shares that assessment, but I recall that my parents' 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air station wagon with the 283 V-8 and Powerglide was not an especially durable car. Even though I was only a young boy, I remember them taking it to the garage to have the defective motor mounts replaced. And our 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 hardtop sedan seemed like a Cadillac compared to that Chevy.

speedshift

Yes, the motor mounts. I remember an early-'70s issue of Motor Trend had an article on what must have been one of the first massive recalls, to replace smallblock(?) Chevy motor mounts. MT had an illustration of a typical nerdy engineer holding up something the size of a piece of confetti and saying "this motor mount is plenty big enough".

You're right, Ford and Chevy never had a package like the Sprint Six although the '64 Fairlane with the 289/271 K motor only came as a 500 two-door sedan, not a hardtop. That kind of uniqueness is probably another reason it only lasted a year.

grbeck

If I recall correctly, the motor mount defect was quite serious - there were several fatal accidents caused by their failure.

One difference with the 1960s Chevys as compared to their Ford counterparts was that when buyers moved up in the GM heriarchy, they could tell the difference. A Mercury, on the other hand, was not that much better than a Ford.

My parents' 1967 Oldsmobile not only offered much better fit and finish than the Chevy, it was also far more durable. At 100,000 miles our Chevy was about shot, while the Oldsmobile was showing some age but still running strong.

I don't think there was that level of difference between a Ford and a Mercury. Buyers didn't have the same incentive to move up to from a Ford to a Mercury.

speedshift

They certainly didn't make the move in large numbers. Mercury started out as a Ford with a bigger engine and I think that's how the market has always perceived it. The only time even the junior Mercury had its own shell ('49-51) it was a big hit but that happened by accident--the Merc was supposed to be the new Ford but at the last minute they realized it was too big.

Yes, when the Chevy motor mount(s) failed the engine would twist and jam the throttle open, causing inadvertent acceleration IIRC. Nowadays we almost expect this from GM but at the time it was quite a shock.

Mr_Shiftright

The Chevy motor mount defect is one of my favorite stories. It is so DIABOLICAL a defect one wonders if it wasn't planned to be lethal.

Not only does the motor jump off the mounts, but when it does, if it goes off far enough, it can pull out the power brake hose, thereby rendering your brakes ineffective, and if you're real lucky, the engine will drop onto the steering arms, jamming them, AND if the motor thrusts far enough ahead, it can open the throttle linkage full bore!

Now is that neat or what? No steering,no brakes and pedal to the metal.

I never actually heard of a case where all these things happened, but the hose breakage is plausible, and the throttle opening could occur in an extreme situation. I'm not sure how the engine could affect the steering--I'd have to look and see if that were actually possible.

ghulet

...in which years and models were GM cars affected by this malady? Remind me to check that out if ever I'm in the market for one.

andre1969

...and nail the brakes. Case closed ;-)

Mr_Shiftright

No, not in neutral---with a wide open throttle? Ka-Boom!

Turning the key off would be better I think, and then jumping on the pedal with both feet--hopefully you hadn't been going too fast.

isellhondas

When those Chevys were recalled, the dealer would attach a steel braided cable between the mount and the exhaust manifold.

Later "safety mounts" were introduced.

I remember replacing those motor mounts quite well. At the time all GM cars seemed to be hard on mounts.

andre1969

...needed new engine mounts, among other things, when we got rid of it. Of course, it also had about 157,000 miles on it, and leaky valve covers, so that might've had a little to do with it ;-)

For some reason, my '68 Dart was always hard on the passenger-side engine mount.

jrosasmc

You already said good-bye to that LeSabre?

andre1969

It just got to the point that it needed too much work, and I've got enough spare cars as it is. In addition to the engine mounts and valve covers, it also needed exhaust work, new tires, and a lot of maintenance stuff like a tuneup, belts & hoses, radiator flush, tranny service, etc. The brakes failed on it, too, and that was the point I decided to get rid of it.

It had about 157,000 miles on it though, so it served its purpose. It was still running strong too.

ab348

The motor mounts (as I understand them) were simply 2 steel plates (one bolted to the engine, one to the frame)in a rubber sandwich. If the rubber failed there was nothing to keep the 2 plates from separating, hence the consequences described above. Later models had "U" or "L" shaped plates that would still hold position even if the rubber failed.

An acquaintance has a '68 Camaro bought new that still has the safety cable recall device installed. Looks quite crude but obviously did the job.

The '65 Chevy had a number of problems aside from the mounts. There was a steering column recall as well and the inset hood caused all sorts of crash repair difficulties. Also early '65s had a tail-dragging issue that was resolved midyear with different spring specs.

The Ford may have been a superior car that year but I must confess I never liked the look of the '65, especially compared to the '64 Ford which remains my favorite of that generation, followed closely by the '60.

argent

I dunno if the general public didn't WANT high-po smallblocks per se, or if it was more that they were voting with their wallets. What killed the K-code 289, for example, was that it was it was expensive -- on a '67 Mustang it was $433.55, where the big 390 was only $263.71. The K-code Mustang was pretty much just as fast as a stock 390 and it handled better thanks to weighing 200-odd pounds less, but that kind of detail probably mattered a lot less to the average buyer (and the corporation) than the bottom line. Same thing led to the demise of the fuel-injected 327 in the Corvette. A lot more cars were still sold with the lesser small blocks, but for those looking for performance, in an era unconcerned about emissions or fuel economy, the bigger, simpler engines just offered more bang for the buck.

grbeck

I've always liked the 1965 Ford, even though it's been described as the "box the 1963 Pontiac came in." In the public parking area at the Hershey show this year there was a 1965 LTD four-door hardtop - it was obviously a daily driver. Worn, but not decrepit. While the Ford's engines were inferior to those in the Chevrolet, I think the rest of the car was less troublesome, at least for the 1965 model year.

andre1969

...in that the big Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth were all-new at the same time. If I were forced to choose between the three, I'd honestly have a hard time picking! I think they were all good looking that year!

My memory's a little fried right now (still being stuck at work can do that to you!), but I can't remember...was there ever another time since 1965 that Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth all redesigned their full-sized in the same year?

I think the big Ford LTD's, in the late '60's/early '70's, at least, put the Chevy Caprice and Fury VIP to shame when it came to interiors. I guess Ford just did that "panty cloth" better than anyone else!

grbeck

...you're right, Ford did "panty cloth" better than anyone else. Does that fall under the dubious achievement category?

It would have been hard to choose among the Ford, Chevrolet and Plymouth in 1965. The Chevrolet had the most advanced styling, but knowing what we do now about its quality, the Ford or Plymouth were better choices. Considering the Plymouth's superior handling and top-notch drivetrains, it may have been the best all-around choice that year. But I still prefer the Ford's styling...Ford produced a better imitation Pontiac than Plymouth did that year!

As for whether 1965 was the last year "the low-priced three" were completely redesigned at the same time - Plymouth was all-new in 1969. Ford and Chevrolet received major changes that year. But I don't think they were all-new. I remember reading an interview with Lynn Townsend of Chrysler in the late 1960s. He said the corporation's goal was to boost the big Plymouth's sales up closer to the level of the Ford and Chevrolet. The all-new 1969 Fury was to be a step in that direction. Unfortunately, all of Chrysler's 1969 "fuselage" full-size cars were a sales disappointment.

jerrym3

Back in the late 60's, I'd borrow a friend's car when I needed a large car for double dating. (Never had a problem switching my 65 Corvette for a friend's car; plenty of volunteers.)

One friend had a 64 Galaxie, 4 sp 390 while the other one had a 65 Galaxie, 4 sp 390.

The 64 felt faster and seemed to handle better. The 65 had a softer ride and gave the impression of being a much larger and more luxurious car (first year for the LTD model; car became a bargain Mercury..

65 styling may have been more "modern", but I liked the lines of the 64.

65 had coil springs all around; 64 used rear leafs; starting in 64, you could get a 3 sp all syncro trans; 64 standard trans rear end ratio was 3:50; I think the 65 may have been 3:00, which would explain the difference in acceleration.

I also seem to remember a commercial (I think it was the Ford LTD) where a jeweler cut an expensive diamond while riding in the back of a 1965 Ford.

Ford pushed "Total Performance" in 1964, luxury in 1965.

ab348

If I had to guess re. another year where each of the big 3 were all new, I'd pick 1969. They may not have been redesigned chassis-wise, but certainly cosmetically, with the pontoon fenders and new dash/interior on the Chevy; a new body and the fabulous "sweep-away" dash on the Ford; and the fuselage body on the Mopar. I loved the Mopar fuselage years even though the public didn't really accept them very well. I thought they were great-looking.

andre1969

...the '65-70 GM big cars as the same style, even though they received significant changes in '67 and '69. I dunno though, maybe they were more "all new" than I gave them credit for!

One thing I found out though, when I needed new ball joints for my '67 Catalina, was that only the '67-68 Pontiacs were swap-able. The '66 ball joint was different, and so was the '69. And it wasn't compatible with a same-year Chevy, Olds, or Buick.

As for the fuselage Mopars, I think my favorite is the '69 Dodges, ironically because they hide the fatness of the fuselage style and somehow look trimmer. The models with the hidden headlights were pretty cool, too.

grbeck

The design of the 1969 Ford control panel struck me as one of those ideas that worked better in theory than in practice - just like the oval center control panel of the 1996-99 Taurus.

As for the fuselage Mopars - the 1969 Dodges were the best looking of the bunch, followed by the Chrysler 300 with the hidden headlights. The Plymouth Sport Fury hardtop and convertible were pretty good looking, as well. Unfortunately, in 1970 the Dodge adopted a bumper-grille that did nothing for its looks, while the Plymouth was facelifted for a more "important" look. It just ended up looking fatter.

The failure of the 1969 C-bodies to sell in the expected numbers was a big setback for Chrysler. The corporation started sliding downhill, reversing the gains it made during the late 1960s.

In my neighborhood is a 1968 Plymouth Fury VIP hardtop sedan that serves as a daily driver. It sure is boxy! At least Plymouth put those boxy contours to good use by making the car very roomy inside.