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

imidazol97

I felt it's a classic and needs to be preserved. I don't know if it's got the value (restored) of a XXX 1958 DeSoto, e.g., but I think it has value to be seen at the cruise through car shows.

I forget the chronology but wasn't that the same group of cars where the Tempest had the rear transaxle driven by the long flexible driveshaft? Those were some of the first downsized economy cars.

Mr_Shiftright

No, it was a conventional driveline. The old Buick Specials aren't very collectible. One reason is that they had a very bad reputation with their dreaded aluminum V-8. A few people like the little convertibles---I think they are quite pretty and might be worth restoring if they weren't too bad. But the sedans are really rather worthless these days and don't deserve a restoration I don't think. It's a waste of time and money. A '58 Desoto would be worth more since they are most interesting cars and more visually flamboyant (and not made anymore).

andre1969

Imidazol, the '61-63 Tempest was the same design as the '61-63 Buick Special and Olds F-85, but the Tempest was unique in having that rear transaxle and rope driveshaft. It improved the interior room, as there was no transmission tunnel up front and the driveshaft hump was almost nonexistent.

The Special and F-85 had more conventional drivetrains though, with a solid rear axle and transmission up front. The F-85/Special used unreliable aluminum V-6 and V-8 engines (198 CID and 215, IIRC) and there was a turbo option as well. These engines went to an iron block for 1964, and served as the foundation for the Buick 231 V-6 and 350 V-8. The Tempest used a "slant-four"...basically a Pontiac 389 V-8 with one bank of cylinders removed.

The convertibles were good looking little cars. I always thought a '61-62 Olds F-85 was a hot looking little number.

chuck1959

the '61-63 Tempest was the same design as the '61-63 Buick Special and Olds F-85, but the Tempest was unique in having that rear transaxle and rope driveshaft. It improved the interior room, as there was no transmission tunnel up front and the driveshaft hump was almost nonexistent.

When I lived in L.A. California in the late 80,s I found and bought one with 80,000 miles. It even had A/C! It was a great car. It easily passed California's "Smog test". To the surprise of the mechanic! I believe that rear transaxle set up was the used in the Corvair. I drove it when I moved back to Texas. It ran flawless and got a lot of looks and conversation while on the road. Unfortunatally it got stolen in 1999 and I never saw her (Betsy) again.

imidazol97

Thanks for the review. I thought the 231 V6 came from a cut down V8 with the back two cylinders taken off-hence the loping with 3 pulse pairs of power strokes in 2 revolutions of the engine that made it seem a little uneven.

Then later the crankshaft/cam timing was evened out. Was that before or after the production equipment went to Jeep and was bought back by GM?

andre1969

With regards to Buick V-6es, all I know is that when the iron-block 225 V-6 and 300 V-8 came out for 1964, replacing the little aluminum units, they used the same castings and such. It was basically the old engines with an iron block. That actually added some advantages, such as a deep skirt design (where the entire engine block extends below the crankshaft instead of just part of it, making for a stronger block). At this point, the 225 was literally a cut-down 300 (same bore/stroke) At some point though, the 300 went to a 340 and then a 350. The 225 was replaced by the Chevy inline 6 around 1968, and the tooling sold to Jeep.

Then, Buick bought back the tooling in the 70's, with a new focus on fuel economy. They enlarged the bore of it just a bit, so that it could use the same pistons as the Buick 350, and the new displacement was 231 CID.

Now I don't understand why, exactly, since they both came from the same block, but the 231 that was used from 1975-1984 was very fragile and had a ton of lubrication problems. Right-angle corners in the passages and other problems meant that as they aged it was easy to clog them up. In the meantime though, the 350 V-8 was a good, solid motor. I always wondered why simply lopping two cylinders off the V-8 caused all the oiling problems? IIRC, Chevy never had a problem with its 200/229/262 V-6, which were chops of the 267/305/350 V-8.

I wonder if the original '64 225 V-6 had the same problems? Or if Jeep made some kind of mods to it that caused the problems? Or even GM, when they bought it back...perhaps they botched it up?

In 1985 the block was beefed up, and supposedly all the lubrication problems addressed, and it went from being one of GM's least durable motors to being one of its best.

Oh, as for the Odd/Even fire thing, I think GM started doing that after the engine was in production. I do remember hearing references to an Odd-fire V-6 versus Even-fire, in the context of GM cars in the 70's. So I guess it was a running change.

imidazol97

>1975-1984 was very fragile and had a ton of lubrication problems.

I recall the oil pumps wore and lost their seal to be able to push a high pressure. There were replacement pump gears and cover that took care of that part of the problem if used soon enough.

bumpy

Oh, as for the Odd/Even fire thing, I think GM started doing that after the engine was in production. I do remember hearing references to an Odd-fire V-6 versus Even-fire, in the context of GM cars in the 70's. So I guess it was a running change.

The earlier versions of the chop-block V6 ran like crap because the power strokes were arranged for a V8, and lopping off the rear two cylinders badly unbalanced the whole thing. Sometime in the late '70s, GM redesigned the crankshaft to get a better (not good, but not as bad as before) balance in the engine and that changed the firing order.

andre1969

did Chevy have to change the firing order of the 200/229/262 V-6 as well? I had a 1980 Malibu with the 229, and my uncle has a '97 Silverado with the 262. I don't remember the Malibu being particularly rough, but my '82 Cutlass Supreme did seem smoother. Seemed a bit torquier as well.

My uncle's pickup isn't exactly the epitome of refinement, but I've driven it countless times and it doesn't seem too bad. I don't think it sounds/feels any worse than my Dad's '03 Regal. I can still tell it's not nearly as smooth as the old 305 in my Silverado, though.

imidazol97

Search for gnt and type and v6hist to find a good one. I can't post a link:
for history on 231 etymology an evolution. I didn't know GM had so many different engine sizes through that era.

I drove a Buick with the 231 V6 that was the lumpy firing order. It was barely noticeable only because I had a 350 Olds Cutlass to compare with it. The motor did feel like it was really softly mounted to cover up the lump. Got great gas mileage for the era- 28 when they drove it up to Ohio to visit.

bumpy

did Chevy have to change the firing order of the 200/229/262 V-6 as well?

No, I think those were set up from the start with V6-compatible cranks. The Buick 231 switched over in 1977.

martian

here is another GM mystery-those horrible chopped V-6 engines! I mean, and italian inventor (was it lancia0 filed a patent for an even-firing V-6 back around 1905-so you can't argue that a decent 9non-shaking) V-6 wasn't within GM's grasp! Which begs the question:what do all of those M.E. Ph.D,s ensconced in GM's R&D labs doe?

andre1969

that GM's V-6es were relatively rough running is that they were 90-degree blocks, as they were taken from 90-degree V-8's. Now I always got the physics behind it confused, but a V-8 engine is inherently balanced with a 90-degree block, but a V-6 needs a 60-degree block to be balanced.

All those PhDs, etc, at GM do wonderful things, but in unfortunately their ideas have to be passed through Accounting, and the bean counters have at it.

Mr_Shiftright

That's right, Lancia came out with the world's first production V-6 engine in the early 1950s, and it was very smooth indeed.

The Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder was a Pontiac V-8 cut in half. Pretty quick for a 4 cylinder but violated the golden rule, that you really don't want any 4 cylinder engine bigger than 2.5 liters or you'll get vibration issues.

lemko

Would've that have been half a 389 V-8? Pontiac called it a "Trophy Four." I call it a Slant Four in parody of Chrysler's excellent Slant Six.

andre1969

yeah, it was just half of a 389 V-8. And because it was designed that way, it was a very heavy engine. While a Pontiac 389 was around 600-650 lb, the Slant-4 was 470 lb. Just for comparison, the Chevy inline 6, which comprised the 194, 230, and eventually the 250, weighed 440lb. Even the Mopar slant six, which was considered heavy for a 6-cyl by that time, was only around 475 lb.

Those little aluminum Buick V-8's were only around 320 lb.

How much hp did the Slant four have? something like 120? I think that's about average for your typical domestic engine of around 200 CID of that time.

lemko

...did the Pontiac Tempest have the unusual Trophy Four, but also had a "rope drive" and a rear mounted transaxle ala Porsche. Remember seeing the Passat's V-6 at the Philly autoshow? It looked almost like an inline six the angle was so narrow - something like 20 degrees?

Mr_Shiftright

That Pontiac 4 was pretty quick, pretty powerful....lots of torque is what did it.

andys120

It looked almost like an inline six the angle was so narrow - something like 20 degrees?

The VW VR6 features a very narrow angle for packaging reasons. I found it very smooth
when I drove an Audi TT equipped w the 3.2 version. IIRC it's so narrow the bores are almost Siamesed like big-valve hot rod setups.

bumpy

here is another GM mystery-those horrible chopped V-6 engines!

As with most dumb things GM has done over the years, this was done to minimize investment and production cost. Those chop-block engines were built using the same tooling and jigs as their V8 sires, so GM didn't have to set up a separate production line for them. The fact that they were crappy engines just made the higher-price V8 options more attractive.

chuck1959

Whoops that reminds me. It did have vibration issues. Went though a couple of harmonic balancers.

bumpy

that GM's V-6es were relatively rough running is that they were 90-degree blocks, as they were taken from 90-degree V-8's.

Once they got the even-fire crank in them, that was the primary source of vibration.

The old Buick V6 had power strokes alternating 90 and 150 degrees apart because of the V8 crankshaft configuration with paired connecting rods. Pairing the rods works on a V8 crankshaft thanks to the math, but a true V6 needs to have individual cranks 120 degrees apart. GM couldn't do that without scrapping the whole architecture (the cylinder centers need to be halfway between the cylinders on the opposite bank), so they designed a paired-crank shaft with the cranks offset 30 degrees to compensate for the V8 geometry.

Now I always got the physics behind it confused, but a V-8 engine is inherently balanced with a 90-degree block, but a V-6 needs a 60-degree block to be balanced.

A 4-cycle 8-cylinder engine has four power strokes per 360 degrees, 90 degrees apart for even spacing. A 6-cylinder engine has three power strokes per 360 degrees and thus needs 120 degree spacing for best balance. A 120-degree V6 would be very wide, so a 60 degree angle (120 degrees from a flat 6) is used for better packaging.

stickguy

on the highway yesterday, a hot rod 1953(ish, I think) Studebaker. Whatever the low coupe with the torpedo nose was called.

Looked nice, riding pretty low, but was a god-awful bright orange color.

Also saw an old (50's or 40's) army truck in someones driveway, all painted up in authentic (I guess) army garb. One of the smaller trucks with the canvas back, but with that classic WWII hood line.

andre1969

that jogged my memory...I saw a '53-54 Studebaker sedan yesterday on I-83, coming back from Pennsylvania. it was a light blue, and coming in the other direction. Looked pretty nice from what I could tell.

I think in the early years, they called those low-slung coupes the "Speedster", but in later years it evolved into the Hawk. And this probably doesn't narrow it down much, but I think the '53-54 models had a split grille, somewhat like a Pontiac, while the '55+ models had the one-piece grille.

Mr_Shiftright

Speedster was 1955 only, and called a "President Speedster". 289 V8, 3 speed overdrive. Used to have one. Pretty quick.

The '53s are nice looking but alas, if you open the hood you are likely to see a flathead 6 and a very old-fashioned and conventional chassis.

Studebakers are best noted for fuel economy, which they did better than anyone.

andys120

Funny you should mention mileage. I heard some guy on NPR today claim he has an old '50s Studebaker that gets 30MPG highway and 20 around town. I figured he was blowing smoke cuz I couldn't get that kind of mileage from a '65 VW
(admittedly I drove it with the right foot flat on the floor most of the time.) :P

fintail

Today I spotted an immaculate ca. 78 Olds 'aeroback' 2 door, in a period looking beige over gold. It looked brand new.

I also saw that mint black 61 Mercury 4 door HT I saw some time ago. Maybe the sun is bringing some oldies out.

imidazol97

L-head six cylinder with overdrive probably got that. I don't recall the exact figures my father gave but he thrived on comparing gas mileage with the overdrive cars when others didn't have overdrive installed.

Mr_Shiftright

It's plausible, definitely. Studebakers used to win the "Mobil Oil Economy Run" quite often. With overdrive, a tiny little 1 bbl carburetor, a low compression small displacement flathead, and reasonable aerodynamics, 30 mpg doesn't sound out of line. Citroens of that era used to get excellent economy and also high top speeds out of fairly small engines.

Lighter weights and good aero never fail to please.

imidazol97

See post about a Merc 220 SE 1963
cheneye, "Smart Shopper - Suggest a topic of discussion" #174, 6 Feb 2006 11:11 pm

andre1969

were also somewhat smallish cars, weren't they? For instance, wouldn't a mid-50's Stude be a bit smaller than something like a Plymouth, Ford, or Chevy? Whenever I see them at car shows, they make me think that they may have been some of the first intermediate cars, even though that term wouldn't be applied to cars until 1962, with the Fairlane/Meteor.

Now one fuel economy claim I've always wondered was those Dart Lites and Feather Dusters of the 70's. They had overdrive trannies and employed some weight reducing techniques. I've heard claims of up to 36 mpg on the highway. Is that possible though? My '69 Dart GT had a slant six, and the best I could muster was around 22-23. Now I had an automatic tranny and air conditioning, which will sap some mileage. And while a Dart Lite/Feather Duster was a bit lighter than a same-year Duster/Dart Sport, I'm sure they were probably about as heavy as my '69. I just couldn't see something that's really not that far removed from my '69 Dart getting 50% better highway mileage. Unless you tried to hyper-mile it, maybe?

martian

I also seem to remember that you could get AMC 6 cylinder cars with those (english) Laycock deNormanville electric overdrive units (for $300 extra). This would lower engine RPMs significantly-I seem to recall that my AMC would rev about 1500 RPM at 65 MPH. i don't know if Studebaker ever had those overdrive units.
Shifty-were those LDN OD units particularly reliable? i don't think they were ever a popular option.

fintail

Either the link is wrong or the post is gone

Mr_Shiftright

Yes Studebaker overdrives were very reliable. They weren't the complicated Laycock system which uses hydraulic pressure to shift into overdrive. The Studebaker was a Borg-Warner unit that requires pushing in a mechanical cable. Way simpler but less convenient. With the OD you got two second gears and two third gears, but it was awkward to make this happen. With a 4-speed Laycock, if you used the mechanical switch to activate or de-activate the hydraulic OD servo, you could toggle yourself two third gears and two fourth gears, so 6-speeds.

imidazol97

The Studebakers about 1950 weren't smaller than other cars. They may have gotten smaller with the low sleek models in the mid 50s. I recall the Studes having 6 people on board and more.

imidazol97

The lockout was a mechanical pull lever. But going into OD was just a matter of letting up on the gas, IIRC./

Mr_Shiftright

You had to push the cable in to get into OD, then achieve a certain speed and then let off the gas...it wouldn't go into OD unless you were going fast enough.

If you pressed all the way down on the gas, it would downshift back into conventional gear, and you could then yank the cable and get out of OD.

When in overdrive, you "free-wheeled", like being in neutral when you let off the gas. So you had to be careful not to be coasting downhill in OD.

The Laycock system is a lot more sophisticated.

imidazol97

We were in relatively flat country so we usually left it ready to go into OD. If you were in hilly areas, you may have needed to put it back into regular engine braking mode to avoid extra brake use.

fintail

I saw some kind of old Ferrari today...I don't know what it was, but it was something cool. I was home with a window open, and I could hear the thing coming, so I ran to see it, but only caught the back of it. It looked like a 250GTO from the back, but it couldn't have been one - but it was that racecar fastback style. It wasn't a 240Z fake or anything...it was a real sound. Maybe a rebody?

fintail

A couple more oddballs today...a 60s Mini, a really pretty kind of candy apple red 61 Buick 2 door HT, a big spoilered 90s Supra in the worst color (white), and the grand finale...what appeared to be a 20s Bentley race car, like those 3.5/4.5 litre cars that are such legends in England. I am pretty sure this thing was real...it was pretty big and very loud, sounded like a train and a car combined. With that and the Ferrari, I wonder if there is some kind of event coming up here.

andys120

Could it have been a 250GT Lusso, those look a bit like GTOs in back, so do 275GTBs and GTB/4?

Both have the flat Kamm panel w two tailights, the 275s have a small ducktail spoiler similar to but smaller than on the GT Omolgato.



There's no spoiler on the Berlinetta Lusso>>



There's four small t/ls on most GTOs.

fintail

It might have been a 275..it was not a Berlinetta Lusso, I would have recognized one of those. I can't imagine it being a real GTO, those are just too valuable. I know they have rebodied plainer 250 cars though.

I saw that Bentley again...it had a distinct whine to it too...maybe a blown car? The thing sounded amazing.

Also spotted a 68 Galaxie convertible.

lemko

...beautiful light yellow 1967 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 396 with black vinyl top and an equally nice 1953 Ford two-door hardtop in coral pink with a white top.

fintail

I've seen a few oddities out on the road today....a 56 T-Bird, a Series II E-type roadster in silver, and the real oddball of the bunch , a 59 Caddy limo, in a period looking but boring grey-green.

I am surprised this has these bids...funny about the steering wheel

Someone didn't have an eye for style

Nice Hudson survivor

Cool Packard survivor

More of the cool stuff being sent into Canada...it's good that Canada can import these, and the US gets fat stupid SUVs and decontented cars everywhere..no really

Looks like a lovely car, but not a "four door coupe"

Nicely restored Pacer

Or if you like them original

This was an odd edition - I've heard my dad talk about these

For the limo collector

Nice fuselage

"Spectator Sierra" - pretty cool old rig, nice pattern on that upholstery

Sad before and after

Uhhh OK

Probably the best one left - not saying it would take much

Mr_Shiftright

Morris Pickup--- very popular, so bidding will be spirited---of course up to a point that is. Morris collectors are not big spenders.

Restored Pacer -- well, there you go, restore a Pacer from the ground up and cash in for $2,200. That'll teach ya'.

70 GTO Judge -- madness, utter madness....this guy's documentation had better look pretty darn good or there's going to be a lynching. At $220K, people get killed for cheating.

andre1969

with that one Pacer, you get a junk 401 to go with it? I'm guessing that if it's a factory V-8, it's just a 304? BTW, how did those things perform with a V-8? I know they were kinda heavy for being small cars, but it seems to me a 304 would have just enough horsepower, maybe 140? Just enough to give it a good balance, without being too much.

As for that '71 Newport, I'm starting to like that style the more I see it. Were the '74-78 models actually a bit smaller overall, though? Just looking at that '71 from the side, its sheer mass just makes the passenger cabin look tiny. But I do remember these as being very roomy, comfy cars. Or maybe the '74-78 styles just look shorter, because they're taller, a bit boxier, and more of their overall length is in those damned 5 mph bumpers?

explorerx4

re.. 'the judge', wasn't the rear bumper painted body color too?

Mr_Shiftright

Dunno...seller is right though, they only made 3 of 'em with the 455. Why that alone makes it worth 2.5Xs the others is beyond me. So you get to wax the hub caps and say "yep, only three with this engine" all day long? Yippie....If it had a different body or the engine was an extra 300 HP or something, well maybe...

explorerx4

the questions is, was that one of the 3? my guess is 'no', based on a chrome rear bumper.

andys120

IIRC The Judge did have a chromed rear bumper, as did my '70 GTO 'vert. Endura front bumper and chromed rears were the norm for '70 GTOs and Firebirds.