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

andre1969

"Darryl, you best be checkin the Interstate for our Catch of the Day!"

I loved the Dukes of Hazzard when I was a kid, but as an adult, it can be a bit painful. I think the first 6 or 7 episodes, which were actually filmed in Georgia, were pretty good, but once they moved production to California, it just lost something. And as the years went by, it just got dumber.

I agree about the Rockford Files...awesome show!

And hey, if it wasn't for Smokey and the Bandit, we never would have met, because I probably never would have gotten the fetish for a '76-77 LeMans, so I wouldn't have been searching for one on eBay and then going out to Cincinnatti to get one! Wow, that's gonna be EIGHT years ago this April!

Oh, speaking of Cincinnatti, WKRP is a pretty cool show...

berri

Love that awesome 1955 Buick Century in those "Highway Patrol" episodes

In latter year episodes he also tooled around in a 57 Merc and a 58 (I think) Dodge. A lot of mid fifties Mopars were used as unmarked vehicles.

berri

'70s TV? Rockford Files was the best

I liked James Garner is most everything he did. I wonder if his real life persona was similar to the personalty he played in show biz?

fintail

Those shows really show how cars changed over a decade, and how severe it was from then to now.

For example, 2002-2012 isn't a huge change in design. But 1972-82 is a pretty big change in style and size. Cars looked old pretty quickly.

berri

Heck a 57 to 58 to 59 Chevy were all pretty dramatic style changes each of those years and Exner's early 60's moves were radically changed from his mid and late fifties designs. I think the mid 50's to mid 60's was a pretty big era of change in America in many aspects.

fintail

Yep. Really, up until the late 80s, cars changed pretty quickly. 1954-55 was probably the most severe change for many brands, but the dawn of the 60s was also big, and even 5 years could make a car look old. Intentional obsolescence worked wonders,

Mr_Shiftright

The transition from 1954 to 1955 was the dawn of the modern automobile as we know it today. There will never be another one-year "jolt" like that one IMO.

uplanderguy

In my opinion, 1964 to 1965 was nearly as dramatic a general styling change as 1954 to 1955.

uplanderguy

In fact, I think even styles and music changed a lot in that '64 to '65 period. The Kennedy assassination, the Beatles coming to America, the escalation of Viet Nam, and in my little world, the demise of Studebaker's U.S. operations in that general period were all very major things that resulted in big changes in American life and culture in that relatively short period of time. Of course, the introduction of the Mustang would have to be mentioned too...although I'm so tired of the hype! LOL

hpmctorque

You could say that '56 to '57 was the aftershock of the '55-'56 tsunami for Ford Motor (Ford and Mercury, Lincoln's big change was '58) and Chrysler Corp. cars, as the changes to the models of those cars was dramatic. The '57s made the '56s look old.

berri

The transition from 1954 to 1955 was the dawn of the modern automobile as we know it today.

I can certainly buy that statement if you are talking about engineering and styling. In terms of pure styling and marketing though, I think 57 and 65 were very prominent years.

fintail

I'll never stop smirking at the thought of people who bought new 1954 cars, and how they must have felt when their year old purchases suddenly seemed much older. Some less than happy customers there.

1965 is a big year too, maybe second to 1955. Big jump in style for everyone, and engines were evolving too.

lemko

...people who bought 1956 Mopar cars were kicking themselves when the sleek new 1957 models came out but were then relieved when they saw what a quality nightmare those '57s were?

Mr_Shiftright

There were some interesting styling changes from 64 to 65 but not much in the way of technology---in 1955 we had new V8s engines that would become legendary, we had dramatic styling, 12 volt electrics, the death knell for flatheads, the death knell for the Independents, wild color schemes---it was an entire package of change. Sure you had the new Mustang in 1965, but it was on a platform as old as the hills.

65 was an important year to notice but it was nothing like 1955 in terms of utter contrast of product line. Things like disc brakes, supercharging, turbocharging, fuel injection, seat belts---these were all 50s or early 60s phenomena.

Biggest technical advance for 1965? Probably the 8-track tape player :P

uplanderguy

But as you know, Shifty, it's all about what you can see!

In the annals of automotive history, the two cars I think changed more, looks and packaging-wise, than any other vehicle, from one year to the next?

1952 to 1953 Studebaker
1964 GM full-size cars to 1965 GM full-size cars

I'd probably have to include 1973 to 1974 AMC Matador Coupe in there too.

jljac

The transition from 1954 to 1955 was the dawn of the modern automobile as we know it today. There will never be another one-year "jolt" like that one IMO.

I completely agree with Mr. Shiftright on this one because so many of the car companies did new things this year, especially GM & Chrysler. Ford introduced the Thunderbird and the Crown Victoria with the chrome strip across the roof, which Studebaker copied and put on its mid-year President Speedster. My uncle had a new black Crown Victoria with glass pack mufflers. It looked great and made a neat growl when he started it up. I heard a similar sound from hot rods before, but never from a new car that came that way from the dealer.

The cars that were not different looked different - including Studebaker (which made changes for more power and a Chevrolet inspired paint scheme in the middle of the model year) and Packard. I thought the Packard had a new body for 1955, it looked so different from the 1954 models. 1955 was a year to remember for many reasons.

Mr_Shiftright

Sure okay but cosmetics wear thin pretty quickly. There's no difference in how a '52 or '53 Studebaker drives--same old technology from 1935, or 1925 in the case of the engine. The '53 looks like something it definitely is not--a sports car....but pretty, yeah sure. Kudos for that.

However, when someone drove a 1955 car vs. a 1954---holy crap! Power! Handling! (sorta) New gadgets to play with! AND....it starts on cold mornings!

Must have felt like heaven on earth......finally shaking off the dreary post-war years of drab colors, rationing, and bad memories.

Oh, and we didn't even mention how the '55 Chevy spelled the death of the home-built hot rod, and the flathead V-8.

jljac

For once I was in complete agreement with you. My last post said that Studebaker looked different - its big body change came in 1953 not 1955, but it did look different. That said, the Studebaker 259 cu.in. V-8 with the 4 barrel carb & dual exhausts gave a lot more power than the 232 V-8 of 1954 and I will match the instrument panel of the Speedster against any other car including the T-Bird or the Corvette. The brakes were much better too with cooling fins on larger drums to dissapate heat and reduce fade.

Here is a good review of the 1955 model year which is specifically about the Ford Crown Victoria but says many things about that model year as follows.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1955-1956-ford-fairlane-crown-victoria.htm

Nineteen fifty-five was a great year to be shopping for your first new car. Chevy finally had a V-8 and looked as cool as Kim Novak in a stretch-nylon swimsuit. And Plymouth was hotter than the Cuban Mambo, strutting the first year of Virgil Exner's "Forward Look" styling and boasting a V-8 of its own. Ford, whose overhead-valve V-8 was now in its second year, ported many advanced styling themes, with a deliberately strong association to the new Thunderbird.

It was the year of wraparound windshields, tubeless tires, flying saucer wheel discs, and more options, vivid colors, and flashy two-tones than a month of Canadian sunsets. Little wonder that Ford's smart new Crown Victoria was to become a classic symbol of the times, if not one of the year's hottest sellers. Road tester Tom McCahill, writing in Mechanix Illustrated, called it "loaded with more saleable angles than a shipload of Marilyn Monroes."

With the high-performance race already in high gear, the sales contest between the "Big Two" was off and running in 1954. It was murder on the dealers, and left the independents with no choice but to merge or become history. But overall, 1955 was a banner year for the industry, with production just a hair under eight million units.

andre1969

The cars that were not different looked different

I was shocked when I discovered that the '55-56 Ford was not all-new, but rather a heavy revision of the '52-54 style. I'd guess the same would hold true for the '55-56 Mercury as well.

Lincoln didn't change much for '55, and it was obvious it was just a warmed over '52-54 model. The '56-57 sure seemed radically different though. I wonder if they were all-new, or if they took a cue from the '55 Ford/Mercury, and just heavily revised the old design?

I once heard that the 1955 Mopar lineup was actually just a heavy revision of the 1949-54 design, but I doubt if there's any truth to that. I guess it's possible though, that they simply put an all-new body on the old frame?

For also managed to stretch their basic 1957 design through 1964, although you wouldn't realize it just looking at the cars. The '59 bore little resemblance to the '57-58, and the '60-64 looked like a whole new car. But, they used the old '57 frame, and one area it's really apparent is in the trunk area over and around the rear axle. And, while the overall height of the cars got lower, the frames themselves did not. As a result, the '60-64 Fords had some incredibly shallow trunks.

I think '57 and '65 were about on par with 1955, when you figure how many models were redesigned. In fact, there may have been even more all-new for '57, when you figure that for '55 the Ford lineup really wasn't new except for the T-bird, while Buick, Olds, and Cadillac were actually all-new for 1954. So that really just left Chevy, Pontiac and the Chrysler lineup. Meanwhile, for '57 we got an all-new Chrysler lineup, all-new Olds/Buick/Cadillac, all-new Ford and Mercury, with only Chevy/Pontiac, Lincoln, and the T-bird being carryover.

But, while there might have been more all-new for '57, I still think that overall, the leap from 1954-55 was greater than the leap from '56-57. Or '64-65.

There have been a few significant leaps since then, such as the 1977 GM B/C Body versus the '76, the 1980 Citation versus the 1979 Nova, '86 Taurus versus the Fox-based LTD, etc. But those leaps were mainly limited to just one platform...never again has the whole industry leaped ahead in one year, as they did back in '55, 57, and '65.

uplanderguy

Shifty, remember that Studebaker beat Chevy, Pontiac, Ford, and Packard by years, with an OHV V8. Not exactly 1925 stuff.

Mr_Shiftright

You left out Oldsmobile and Cadillac and Chrysler, so if Studebaker wants to chant 'we're # 4!", well...go for it. :P

What was special about the '55 Chevy V8 was that it was a short-stroke, high compression, lightweight engine, not a wheezy over-square. The Chevy small block was a remarkable achievement, not just an ohv V-8.

uplanderguy

I ask with a straight face, "What independent beat them?" That is a major piece of engineering. Stude was considered among the low-price makers at the time the OHV V8 was introduced, in '51. Did Chev, Ford, Nash, Plymouth have one? Nope.

Four years before Packard and Chevrolet and Pontiac. For an independent, that is something to be proud of. I believe most would agree. It was a very sturdy engine with the ability to eke very high performance out of it. Take a look at the "Stude Tomato" and "Plain Brown Wrapper" videos on You Tube, from the 'Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags' for evidence.

Not to take away from a '55 Chevy V8. I'm often tired of 'me, too!!' cars, but the '55 Chevy blows a hole in that. I could enjoy owning one. Not a '57, though.

andre1969

Yeah, the Chevy smallblock of 1955 definitely brought the "power to the people". IIRC, the Ford and Plymouth V-8's actually put out more hp, but they didn't have the low reciprocating mass of the Chevy V-8, so they couldn't rev as freely.

I also remember seeing some old road test, from a few years earlier, when Ford had the V-8 bragging rights. Yet, the Chevy with the 6-cyl put out a bit more hp, and accelerated a bit faster! But, that was stock. I'd imagine the old Ford Flathead V-8 lent itself to hotrodding a bit better than the old Chevy Stovebolt/Blue Flame.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, you stretch the realm of credibility----Those are not 1952 engine blocks. Those are massively re-worked engines in drag cars. Hardly that poor little 232 cid V8. Studebaker copied freely from Cadillac but their V8 was not a Cadillac clone. Studebaker got skunked in a way because they thought their 232 would be running on high octane fuel in '52---alas, there wasn't much to be had--so the 232 struggles to develop its planned HP and torque. It was kind of a mouse of an engine. The 259 fixed a lot of things wrong with the 232.

Believe me, NOBODY was seriously racing Studebakers in the 1950s. If anything, the first thing they did with a Studebaker was get rid of the engine and put it....can you guess?...a Cadillac V8, giving us the legendary "Studillac"--- a very popular conversion.

Chevy dominated the 1950s--there was only the Hemi to give it any serious competition.

lemko

You can still see the 1957 windshield in the 1966 Imperial.

uplanderguy

The '55 Studebaker V8 developed up to 185 hp. The Chevy had 162 but I don't know if there was a Power Pack in '55 yet or not. The Chevy V8 was lighter. Like Chevy, the Stude engine evolved in displacement, from 232 to 259 to 289 to 304.5 inches. The engines in those cars in the videos are bone-stock and shown as optional in the showroom brochure. You have to come there armed with documentation and they inspect your car closely beforehand. The January 'Hemmings Muscle Car Review' has an article on this year's 'Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags' and discusses the Studes there.

I like the '55 Chevy too, just trying to remain factual on both sides of the aisle so to speak.

Mr_Shiftright

Well gee, I'm sure nobody ever cheats at drag races---LOL! Besides, the PBW is stictly a drag strip car. You can't compare such a thing to a street car--it would be barely usable as such.

Anyway, point is if you race a stock '52 Studebaker against a '52 Olds, you'd lose, and if you raced a stock '63 Avanti R1 against a '63 Chevy 327 you'd lose and I can tell you from painful personal experience that if you race a '55 Studebaker against a '55 Chevy you'd lose--every time.

AND even if you raced a '63 Avanti R1 against a '55 Chevy you'd...probably....lose.

The Chevy V8 changed the world of street racing forever and, until the 60s Mopars, was a dominant force.

uplanderguy

How do you explain the R2 and R3 Studes mopping up cars with 100 more inches? Oh yeah, it's only that the Stude guys cheat. And personally, the two owners that I know, are a retired, longtime school teacher and the other is a college music professor. Your regular used-car lizard types.

I don't know this guy, I've heard of him--and I don't pretend that this is typical--but after spending about 20 seconds searching, here's video of an R1 Lark two-door sedan (lightest body) beating a 440 six-pack Mopar (the comments beneath it are entertaining):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7rqh_WAyU

Mr_Shiftright

I'm afraid I'm completely losing the point of your posts.

What I'm trying to present is that the small block Chevy engine of 1955 was of great historical importance and had tremendous impact in the automobile marketplace. It is one of the greatest engines of all time.

Speaking of obscure, when's the last time anyone saw one of these?

uplanderguy

The R1 in the video is not supercharged. No R1's were.

Mr_Shiftright

yep, yep, okay, whatever...enjoy the show! :P

andre1969

I took off the day after Thanksgiving, and went for a walk along one of our local rails-to-trails. I spotted a '53 Chevy and a '55 or '56 Crown Victoria.

Alas, this was the Chevy.

And this was the Crown Victoria.

You don't want to see the '65 Impala convertible I saw...it was a real tear-jerker. :sick: Plus, the batteries in the camera were about to die, so it was acting up.

Oh, and here's an '82-83 Cavalier.

Mr_Shiftright

Crazy thing is, if that were a Ferrari or a Gullwing, they'd restore it.

omarman

That's one of those Jeep FC cab over trucks which, based on the pic, looks to be restored better than new. I don't remember the last one I saw but the very first one was just a pic in an old Country Journal magazine. Sent in by an old farmer, his Jeep FC had a 4-door cab, PTO and a 3 cylinder diesel (?) engine. He just left it parked in a field after parts became scarce.

Mr_Shiftright

The FC near me is also restored--not "show" restored but pretty darn nice. They're kinda cute in real life---very unusual to see one anymore. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have a lot of value, for all their rarity.

uplanderguy

I like them a lot, but can't remember when I've last seen one. Seems I saw a restored one in 'Collectible Automobile' not terribly long ago.

Made from '57 to '65 IIRC. The Erie-Lackawanna Railway station in my little hometown had school bus yellow ones that drove on the tracks.

The former owner of the Jeep dealer in my town lived in the same assisted living place as my mother. He had dementia. His son told me once that he liked company. I saw him in the hall one time and said, "Elton, I understand you were the Jeep dealer" and he replied "yes". I said, "I like those Forward Control Jeeps" and he said "FC, yes". This was a guy who had no idea what day it was or who was president, but I sparked a little bit of recognition in him. It made my day.

stickguy

stopped at a local repair shop to look at something out front, and when I was turning around in the side lot they had a 75ish (bumper) Gremlin. Black. Looked to be in original condition (not new, but what you would expect a '35 YO Gremlin to look like!)

classy touch though. It had a Mack bulldog hood ornament on it. I should have put one of those on the Gremlin I had back in 1982!

fintail

Yikes! But they bring so much money nowadays, it could be done.

berri

I recall those Jeep FC (I think the earlier version may have actually been called a Willy's?) were not that uncommon of a sight at gas stations in the Chicago area back in the latter 50's and 60's. I think they were pretty maneuverable for plowing them out and also for going on runs to jump start cars. Funny thing is that the more regular Jeep looking pick ups could also be seen at gas stations back then. Sometimes you'd also see either of these plowing sidewalks and driveways in bigger shopping strips and malls (the big malls hired bigger stuff to plow the actual parking lots). I always thought they looked kind of neat. Maybe because they were a bit unusual.

uplanderguy

Maybe because they were a bit unusual.

I agree. I think that's usually a good thing.

hpmctorque

"The '55 Studebaker V8 developed up to 185 hp. The Chevy had 162 but I don't know if there was a Power Pack in '55 yet or not."

The '55 Checy with power pack was rated at 180 hp.

uplanderguy

Thank you. I knew there was a Power Pack in '56 and '57 but was unsure about the '55.

wevk

The 1955 Corvette could be purchased a 195HP version:

http://www.amazon.com/Chevrolet-Corvette-Sales-Brochure-Literature/dp/B005FQSMM2-
http://silodrome.com/chevrolet-corvette-roadster/

wevk

wevk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCrmbIC6mVM

Mr_Shiftright

The Chevy small block was called the "Mighty Mouse" engine by drag racers.

In 1956, Corvette offered a 265 V8 with 2-4 barrels and hi lift cam for 240HP.

The 265 is not so desirable today because of its external oil filter.

The 283 in 1957 and 327 in 1962 became what most people regard as the best V8s of their time, although some might claim the '56 Chrysler, since it was actually the first to achieve 1 hp per cubic inch.

hpmctorque

Just what was it that made the '55 Chevy small block V8 so much better than the '55 Ford and Plymouth V8s? All three were high compression (for their day), short stroke designs. Was it principally the Chevy's lighter weight?

I've read that Chevy V8s were problematic in their early years, but I can't recall what the problems were. Was this true, and what were the problems?

uplanderguy

I've read that early Chevy V8's had problems, but I can't remember what either. '51 and some '52 Stude V8's were known for soft cams.

andre1969

I think the main advantage of the Chevy smallblock was the lower reciprocating mass (internal components) that made it more willing to rev up.

As for quality issues, the main complaint I've heard about it was simply "weak bottom end". Now, I don't know if that means the lower part of the block itself was prone to failure, or the crankshaft, or what?

I have an old Consumer Guide used car book that lists the crankshaft as a problem area, but they were referring to the 1970's versions. Dunno if that would apply to the 60's as well? At some point in the 1970's, a lot of makers started switching from a forged crankshaft to a cast one, and, in the Chrysler camp at least, I've heard people say the old forged ones were better. I guess it's possible Chevy did something similar with their crankshafts around that time?

That being said, the only smallblock I can remember my family have that needed any work "before its time" was the 350 in my Grandparents' '72 Impala. Around 70,000 miles, my Granddad did a valve job on it.

My Mom had a 1986 Monte Carlo with a 305, and it made it to 192,000 miles, when I got t-boned in it while delivering pizzas. It had external items fail, like the water pump, those metal tubes that inject air into the exhaust, etc. But the engine itself was never opened up. It did smoke a little when you first started it, and under hard acceleration though.

Similar story with my '85 Silverado. Granddad bought it brand new, and I still have it, with 140,000 miles. It'll puff at start-up and a bit under hard acceleration, and has needed a water pump, distributor, ignition coil, etc. But, it's 305 has never been opened up.

uplanderguy

My parents' '84 Monte Carlo 305 was a real nice car, but by 40K miles it smoked blue when you started it. They were known for that. The 305's supposedly had soft cams in '77-79 or so, but our '77 never experienced that.