My Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia mentions that the old Chrysler Saratogas with the 331 Hemi could do 0-60 in about 10 seconds and top out around 110 mph. That was 1951-52, when the Saratoga was kind of like Chrysler's version of the Century...in this case a big New Yorker engine in a smaller Windsor body.
I still think that's a bit optimistic though, at least in 0-60. The '51-52 Windsor was the same sized body as the Firedome, and the 331 Hemi only had 20 more hp (180) than the DeSoto 276.1 Hemi (160). So it seems odd to me that the Saratoga could hit 60 in 10 seconds, while the Firedome took 17.
Of course, who did the original test can make a huge difference. If Motortrend or C&D or their forefathers tested the Saratoga and Consumer Reports tested the Firedome, heck that could be most of the difference right there! :P
People talk about these old "Hemis" like they were the same as the later 426s from the 60s. They weren't. They were fairly powerful relative to what was around in 1952 (not much) but these early Hemis were by no means powerhouses and they are overly glorified in the reflection of their awesome younger brother--the 426. I think Consumer Guide is totally delusional about 10 seconds...they must have been quoting numbers about this engine when it was mated to a stick shift hotrod in a lighter body perhaps. Given the transmissions used in 1952...er...I don't think so....
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Windsor, Saratoga, and DeSoto shared the same body, while the New Yorker had a longer wheelbase. Therefore, the Saratoga had a power-to-weight advantage over over the other two, and especially the Windsor, which had the flathead six until the '55 model year.
~110 mph sounds reasonable for the Saratoga, which, if accurate, makes >100 but <110 plausible for the Firedome DeSoto.
The Saratoga was sort of the "hot rod" because it had the V-8 in the lighter Windsor body.
Still, 180 HP pushing 4,000 lbs past 100 mph would require tall gearing seems to me....which would mean not so great acceleration. That's a lot of weight to move from inertia.
To be fair, for 1952 that "little" Hemi was a great engine compared to the primitive wood stoves installed in most domestic cars of the time.
Other great engines IMO for the time were of course the short-stroke Olds V8, the Cadillac V8, the venerable Hudson flathead (which could put out some power, unlike most FHs)and the brilliant Jaguar dohc inline 6. The first Ferrari V-12s were appearing about at this time, too, as was the world's first V-6, from Lancia.
Yeah, that's right, the Windsor, Saratoga, and DeSoto were on the same 125.5" wheelbase. The New Yorker had been on the longer Imperial wheelbase, something like 131.5", but in 1953-54 it too moved down to the 125.5" DeSoto/Windsor wheelbase. The Saratoga was dropped in 1953-54, but the name would resurface from 1957-60 as a midline trim level slotted between the Windsor and the New Yorker. However, later models used Windsor engines: a 354 poly in '57-58 and the Chrysler version of the 383 Wedge for '59-60. It was dumped again for 1961, as Chrysler moved downmarket. The non-letter 300 models sort of replaced it, but they were at a lower price point.
In 1954 Chrysler got the 331 Hemi up to 235 hp, so I'm sure that must've been pretty gutsy. And of course, in 1955 history was made (well, domestic history, at least) when the C300's 331 put out 300 hp, the first production car to do so.
I think those old 2-speed transmissions used in 1954-56 must've held back a lot of power compared to the 3-speeds that started showing up in '57. IIRC first gear was 1.72:1 in the 2-speed and 2.45:1 in the 3-speed. They'd give the 2-speed a quicker rear-end, but still not enough to make up the difference. In the 1956 300B though, they did offer a rear-end of something like 6.07:1. That must've made it pretty brutal from 0-60, at least. But then I'd imagine at 60 mph in top gear, you'd be pulling about 4500 rpms, and you'd redline long before seeing 100.
I'd imagine that the high-output versions of the Hemi, like the Letter Series, Adventurer, and D-500 options, could rev better, but I think most of the "regular" Hemis, hit their peak hp around 4400-4800 rpm and redlined around 5500.
"Still, 180 HP pushing 4,000 lbs past 100 mph would require tall gearing seems to me..."
I don't know about the tall gearing requirement for high top speed, because of the poor aerodynamics of those '50s cars. As you correctly pointed out in an earlier message, Shifty, these engines didn't rev too high, but I'm thinking that most of the new OHV V8s revved enough to push those beasts - albeit reluctantly - to 100 + a few if, IF their gearing was low enough to compensate for the wind resistance. I don't think they would have had enough power to hit 100 with tall gearing, but they generally had lower gearing than the cars of the '60s and later.
By the way, the relatively small displacement 160 hp DOHC early '50s Jag Mark (whatever) sedan could top 100, and could spank the early Mopar hemis and GM V8s at higher speeds.
I imagine that the twin carb Hudson Hornet, and maybe the straight 8 Parkards of the early '50s could also squeak past the century mark, but I'm only guessing. I think a larger percentage of Hudsons and Packards were equipped with manual transmissions than their Big 3 counterparts. What do you think, Shifty?
I think one problem with many of those older cars was that they used really short axle ratios, like 3.73:1, 4.11:1, etc. Those short ratios were the reason that they had any performance at all at lower speeds. After all, 180 hp gross is probably only like 125-130 net, and that ain't much when you have to move two tons. That's like putting a V-6 in an '81 Electra/98! (damn you, GM!)
But on the downside, those short ratios meant that the engines hit their peak power at a fairly low speed. I think those early Hemis usually peaked around 4400 rpm. And if I'm doing the math right, that would come right at about 100 mph with a 3.73:1 rear end. And assuming I did the math right. I looked up the tire specs for a '52 Windsor at Cokertire.com. The stock tire was an 8.20-15, which they say has a diameter of about 29". So that would put it at about 700 revs per mile (and 700 revs per minute at 60 mph) So I figure if you do 100/60*700*3.73, that'll roughly give you the engine rpm at 100 mph. Of course, it doesn't take into account stuff like wind resistance, friction, slippage on the tires, etc.
Anyway, a slightly taller (numerically lower) rear end might achieve a higher top speed. For instance, a 3.54:1 rear in the same car would be doing about 4100 rpm@100, so it might hit its 4400 peak around 108-110 mph. Above that though, I guess once your revving past your peak, you're going to lose power...and speed.
But then if you put some really tall rear-end in, like a 2.45:1 (that's whay my '79 NYer has, and was probably unheard of back in the early 50's), it might only be pulling around 2800 rpm@100 mph in theory, but in actuality it might not put out enough power at 2800 rpm to get to 100 mph. And it might not be able to downshift, either, because the lower gear might over-rev it.
Interesting, andre! On the issue of top speed, does your information source happen to say what the standard rear axle ratios were on the '52 DeSoto, NY and Saratoga? I'm guessing they would have been around 3.9 or 3.73, or maybe even 3.54, with 4.1 being optional, if it was available. I don't think the V8s of that period had anything as low as 4.1 standard. I think the rear axle ratio of the '51 Plymouth (flathead) was 3.9. It may have been a little lower, maybe 4.1, with the overdrive option, but then the overall final ratio would have been taller, because of the overdrive. Also, the ratio of the top gear of the transmission, in addition to the axle ratio, would be another key variable, would it not?
Your comments regarding weight and acceleration are correct.
I forget now where on the web I found that other axle info. This is a few years later, but I have a 1957 DeSoto shop manual, and it lists the 3.54:1 axle as standard with the 2-speed Powerflite, and a 3.31:1 being standard with the Torqueflite. It doesn't list which ratios were optional, though. For some reason, I'm thinking my '57 has a 2.94:1, but I could be wrong. One of these days I'll get the ambition to crawl up under it and look at the axle tag.
But for the most part, I'd imagine the typical axle of an early 50's V-8 was in the mid-to-high 3.XX range.
Oh yeah, I forgot about overdrive. That probably allowed them to use quicker axle ratios for better low-end performance, while cutting down the highway revs for better economy. In the 1980's, when overdrive transmissions started coming back into style, Ford took advantage of that. IIRC, the big Fords with the 4-speed overdrive used an axle of around 3.00:1, which helped both low end performance and fuel economy. When GM started using them though, they tended to use the same tall axles, so you didn't get any low-end performance, but at highway speeds the engine was revving so low it felt like it was going to stall! I think that helped GM with the CAFE crap, though.
3.54 seems about right for the '53 Firedome, which would have permitted it to top 100 mph. I think that a 3.73 ratio would have too, if only modestly.
To clarify, my reference to overdrive related to manual transmissions, not the 4-speed OD automatics introduced in late the early '80s. Engagement of OD, back in the day, generally occurred at a minimum speed of ~28 mph, and was similar to shifting the Chrysler semi-automatic; you lifted your foot from the acclerator and waited for a clicking sound. The click signaled that the upshift had occurred. Downshifts out of OD occurred by flooring the accelerator, or by dropping below the minimum speed. OD could be engaged in any of the three forward gears, essentially providing six forward ratios, although some flathead sixes struggled to reach the minimum speed in first, or simply couldn't. All of them could reach it easily in second, thereby providing a minimum of five forward ratios; first, regular second and OD second (the equivalent of second and third), and regular third and OD third (equivalent to fourth and fifth). The vast majority of drivers only engaged OD third, which, of course, was the purpose of OD. OD first and second were only for fooling around, although they could be useful on mountain roads. The maximum speed for engaging OD corresponded with the maximum speed the car could go in the non-OD gears. Since the norm for American cars was only three forward gears, versus four for most European cars, OD was a useful feature, if somewhat cumbersome.
On the issue of acceleration, while its true that the V8s of the '50s ran out of breath quickly, they had decent torque.
I'd say barely...maybe 100 mph would be possible. I had a '55 Dodge 2 door hardtop (Royal Lancer) with that Hemi V8 and I couldn't get it up to 100, god knows I tried. But that WAS in Colorado where oxygen was a bit scarce, even if gas was cheap back then. :P
Gee, driving those two-ton sponges on bias-ply tires at 100 mph....phew...no wonder they call all the race drivers of those days "The Men of Iron".
My fave 50s engine was the fuel-injected Chevy 283 putting out one horsepower per cubic inch. A milestone, certainly.
"I had a '55 Dodge 2 door hardtop (Royal Lancer) with that Hemi V8 and I couldn't get it up to 100..."
Help me out here, andre, but I think Dodge dropped the hemi for '55, at least in some models, if not most or all models, and adopted the new for '55 polysherical engine. The poly engine was cheaper to build than the hemi. I know you couldn't get the hemi in the '55 Plymouth, only the poly in the V8. Maybe the hemi wouldn't have made any difference, but in adopting the "Forward Look", the '55 Mopars were considerably larger and heavier than the '53s and '54s. They also had a little more horsepower, but maybe not enough to compensate for the added weight and wind resistance. What I'm saying is that the '55 Dodge V8 may have been a little slower at the top end than the earlier V8s, but that's just speculation on my part. That said, if your speedo couldn't hit 100, I'm thinking there may have been something wrong with your car, Shifty, because given the speed inflation that was common in the speedometer calibrations of that period, your car may have topped out at ~90. while I wouldn't stake my life on it, I think the '55 Royal Lancer could go a bit faster than that. Now, certainly high altitude would have detracted from your car's potential, as you indicated, so that may explain why you couldn't go faster.
Well I dunno....could be it wasn't the hemi engine I had...I'd need to see a photo.
but I have driven the legendary 426 Hemi in a couple of 60s Mopars and they are in a different universe from the old 50s Hemis in terms of power...it's like a 36 hp VW bug vs. a Porsche turbo. The 426 power is massive, overpowering, furious....
The Lancer was pretty neat...it had this little shift lever that came out of the dashboard, pointed right at you. I'm sure at 5,500 feet it was struggling a bit, but you know, it hauled up the mountains pretty well as I recall. I also remember the script on the fender was anodized gold color and that the valve covers on the V8 were huge.
I have no experience and little knowledge about the 426 hemis, other than they were very successful on the drag strips. I believe what you say regarding the performance difference between the early '50s Chrysler hemis and the 426. Some of the difference was in the displacement, but I understand there were other significant differences too, to account for the huge perfomance differential you describe.
The 5500 altitude explains the performance shortfall.
We've talked endlessly in various Edmunds discussions about the fact that the American cars of the '50s and '60s, and to a slowly diminishing extent the '70s and '80s, were unsafe at high speeds and spirited (a euphemism for agressive?!) driving. What's interesting is that it wouldn't have taken much, even with old technology, to make significant improvements. Tighter suspensions and steering, with fewer turns from lock-to-lock, would have been no brainers. Brakes and tires, before the advent of disc and radial technology, would have been more of a challenge, although Detroit was slow to adopt these innovations, compared to the Europeans. I think the domestic manufacturers had the ability to address the enthusiast market much better, in areas other than straight line acceleration, but they chose to focus on frequent styling changes and comfort, with all the power options, automatic transmission development and A/C. We must acknowledge that Detroit was a leader in these major areas, which we take for granted today. However, chassis development, brakes, suspensions, and tires probably suffered as a result. The sales numbers indicate that Detroit read the market well in the '50s and '60s, but didn't respond well to the emerging economy and sport sedan niches, and quality. The reasons for Detroit's weakened state today is multifaceted, from incompetent, arrogant management, to powerful, unyielding and confrontational unions. However, if one were to identify the single major cause of Detroit's decline, it would be quality, quality, QUALITY. And, oh yes, did I mention quality? If the quality had been there, far fewer people would say "I'll never consider buying an American car again", as I've heard numerous times. That's very unfortunate, especially because I think the leaders of the domestic companies get it now. I think the current top management of GM, Ford and DC is competent, but their companies are in a seriously weakened state.
It's always an interesting exercise to visit a car museum or collection, especially when where you can get up CLOSE to the cars, and examine the American vehicles from say 1948....then go to 1958.....then 68....and 78....and you might come to some interesting conclusions about quality. This would be best done by forgetting the actual CAR you are looking at and your likes and dislikes....just look at the quality of materials and the assembly.
Of course, it's better if this were done on original cars than on recent restorations, because contemporary restorations often exceed the original factory standards by a wide margin.
HANDLING AT HIGH SPEED:-- well you can STIFFEN an old American car up so that it would handle pretty fair on smooth roads but there's only so much you can do with the 50s type of suspension, which is really 1930s suspension. And then there's the problem of weight and braking on a 50s car.
As I've said before (yawn), any mechanic from 1915 could be dug up and work on a 1965 Mustang, no problem.
And WEIGHT was a factor, too. No matter how exquisite the suspension and braking of a modern car is, if it weighs 5000 lbs you are going to have to work your butt off in the twisties.
I think the classic battles at Lime Rock between powerful Corvettes and dinky little MINIs illustrates the problem. The Corvettes left the MINIS in the dust on the straights, and by the time of the curves, the MINIs used to pass the Vettes...and then it starts all over again....
Not all the cars of the early-mid '50s were porkers. There were numerous models, including the so called low priced three (Chevy, Ford, Plymouth), Studys, Nashes, Henry J that weighed around 3,000 pounds, give or take 100-300. Collectively, these represented the majority of American production. Of course, there were also 4-5,000 pound mastadoms.
As for quality, for the most part American cars of the '30s, '40s and '50s (pre'57) enjoyed a reputation for high quality and reliability. Some of the European cars of that period were more technologically advanced in some areas, but their quality and reliability wasn't superior. Also, as noted in my previous message, American cars were more innovative in comfort and convenience features. These things mattered to American motorists.
That's about what an auto museum would show you, yes....a late 40s car is very nice quality and by 1958 it's starting to look pretty ragged if you look closely...they're pretty much slammed together any old which way. But you're right, the chrome is shiny and the seats are cushy and the engine is roaring....just don't look too close and the drippy welds, overspray, mismatched panels, etc.
But you know, for the price, you still got a lot of car in 1958...some might say TOO MUCH car---LOL!....so you have to give credit to American engineering in that sense....it's like ordering a new Peugeot and the factory saying "You want to supersize that? No extra charge!"
Also American cars could get 100,000 miles out of a $2 part---it wasn't pretty but it worked for as long as it was likely the rest of the car would last before rust and calamity overtook it.
Those cheapo stamped rocker arms on Chevies? Brilliant! Lasted the live of the engine unless you over-revved them pretty mercilessly! No they weren't the cast aluminum of some Alfa Romeo but they worked and costs 1/10th th price. But pretty and well made? No, not at all.
Regarding owner satisfaction, for all their deficiencies the bottom line is that Americans were happy with domestic cars in the '50s and '60s, and non Americans who owned or experienced American cars were too.
Well they suited the conditions of the times...gas was cheap, roads were big and straight, and there was really no competition anyway. You could have sold wooden barrels with wheels on them in the early 1950s. British cars were awful and the Germans were still knee deep in war rubble. It was definitely the "Happy Time" for American manufacturers.
So you're right...you can't view the past with knowledge of the future...you have to judge the 1950s by 1950s standards.
Besides to judge quality you need contrasts, and Americans didn't get a taste of qualty automobiles from abroad until the late 1960s.
the Dodge V-8 in 1955 was a 270.1 CID unit (I dunno why Mopar listed it to the tenths, but they did). It was an enlargement of the original 1953-54 241.3 "Red Ram" Hemi.
I think the 1955 270.1 was still a Hemi-head engine, but in 1956, Dodge offered a 270.1 and a 315. IIRC, the 270.1 became a poly-head engine for 1956, while the 315 enlargement was a Hemi-only, I believe. In 1957, the 315 was bored out to a 325. In poly-head version it offered 245 hp with a 2-bbl and 260 with the 4-bbl. There was a Hemi version that put out 285/310 (I think that was 4-bbl/dual quad)
The 1955 Plymouth V-8 was a poly-head unit, offered in 241/260 CID configurations, and the 1955 Chrysler Windsor fielded a 301 poly. The 331 remained a Hemi, but in 1956, it went poly while the 354 enlargement was a Hemi-head. The same thing happened in 1957, when the big 392 was offered, as a Hemi only. The 354 became a poly-head that year in Windsors and Saratogas, although Dodge offered a 340 hp Hemi version of it for the D-501.
As for the 1955 Dodge, its 270.1 was offered in 3 hp configurations that year. 175 hp in the cheaper models, and 183 was standard in the Custom Royal. A "Power Pack" option, which consisted of a 4-bbl carb, boosted it to 193 hp.
Quickest way to tell a Hemi-head from a poly head is to just look at the valve covers. The Hemi covers are big, wide rectangular things that have a separate cover that hides the spark plugs and wires, giving the top of the engine a very clean look. The Hemi cover has kind of a jagged saw-tooth pattern on the outer side, and the spark plugs are exposed.
Best way to think of the old Mopar Hemi is basically to look at it as a Chevy smallblock. Just like the Chevy smallblock, there were mundane family-car versions and there were blistering high-performance versions. It's a bit foolish to make the comparison to something like a 2-bbl Hemi out of a DeSoto Firedome or Dodge Custom Royal to something like the 426, which was a mildly toned-down racecar engine, and really not designed for street use. A better comparison would be something like the 300 Letter Series engines, the 1957 Adventurer engine, or the D-500 engines.
As for Chevy's claim of 1 hp per cubic inch in 1957, remember they only did that with fuel injection, and that was a $500+ option. Chrysler actually EXCEEDED 1 hp per cubic inch in 1956, with the optional 355 hp 354 Hemi. 340 hp was standard. And DeSoto was the first to offer 1 hp per cubic inch as standard equipment in 1957, with the Adventurer's 345 hp 345 CID Hemi, which had dual quads. For some strange reason though, DeSoto didn't use that 1 hp to any marketing advantage, like Chevy did. One reason could be that by that time, divisional competition was starting to rear its head at Chrysler, and maybe it didn't look good that the DeSoto offered 1 hp per cubic inch standard, while the much pricier, more prestigious 300C couldn't even do it with an optional engine?
The 392 Hemi did come close, with a 390 hp version. It was essentially a racecar engine though, and was actually sold with a warning that it was intended mainly for racing and not really suitable for everyday street use, similar to the later 426 Hemi conversion of the Wedge. For street use, they recommended the 375 hp version.
"My fave 50s engine was the fuel-injected Chevy 283 putting out one horsepower per cubic inch. A milestone, certainly."
An impressive engine, and perhaps unexpected from GM, but wasn't this engine problematic? I don't recall exactly what the problem was, but I think it related to the non electronic (mechanical?) fuel injection system, and not the engine itself. Maybe fuel management was deficient under certain conditions, due to the primitive nature of the system, but I'm not sure.
yeah, it was the poly head cover that had the jagged pattern. I hate when my fingers don't type what my mind is thinking! Must be the lysdexia setting in ;-)
As for the 283 fuelie, I don't think it was too problematic as far as fuel injection goes. It was a mechanical setup, and more reliable than the electronic Bendix fuel injection that Chrysler used in 1958.
Were dual-quad carburetors hard to keep adjusted and in-tune? I've heard that the triple 2bbl carbs, most notably Pontiacs Tri-Power, were hard to keep adjusted, but I've never heard anything similar about dual quads.
IIRC, the Chevy 283 put out 283 hp with fuel injection, and 270 with dual quads. In contrast, the '58 Plymouth 350 Wedge had 305 hp (with dual quads I think), or 315 with fuel injection. I think the Plymouth was a fairly mild setup though, to keep it from embarrassing the bigger Mopar flagships. The Dodge D-500 that year had a 361 that put out 320 hp with dual quads or 333 with fuel injection. The DeSoto Adventurer also used a 361, in a hotter state of tune that put out 345 hp with the dual quads and 355 with fuel injection. And that year's 300D put out 380 hp with dual quads, or 390 with fuel injection (the same as the previous year's hotter dual quad option)
I used to think that the Mopar fuel injection was a bit of a ripoff, because it was something like a $400-500 option and for the most part only got you 10 more hp. But it looks like the Chevy FI was at least as pricey.
Supposedly the Mopar fuel injection was so troublesome that all but a handful were converted back to dual-quads. I've always wondered if the manufacturer gave these buyers a refund on the fuel injection price? I know I'd be pretty pissed if I forked over $400-500 (probably $2000-2500 or more in today's dollars) for a factory performance upgrade, only to have it converted back.
I seem to recall readind that the dual quad and FI actually had about the same power but the FI had the advantage in racing because it had not floats to run dry in the corners.
I also think that in the 50s they lied like rugs about horsepower, that is, over-inflating the numbers...whereas in the 60s they lied in the other direction. Nowadays they can't get away with advertising like that. You dyno a modern car, and that's about what you'll see.
Well I think that once most hp numbers started ending in either a 5 or 0, that was a pretty good indication that they were rounding off. And most likely, rounding up!
I remember an issue of Popular Mechanics where they put a Chrysler 340, some Ford engine (390 I think), and some Oldsmobile engine (a 425?) on a dyno to see what kind of numbers they really put out. The Chrysler was rated at 270-275 gross, and it actually put out something like 245, at the wheels! That's really impressive, considering that going from gross to net hp, you often lose 20-30%, but even net hp isn't measured at the wheels. Once you factor in the transmission, driveshaft, differential, etc, you can still easily lose another 20-30%. That shows just how under-rated the 340 was. When the 340 went to net hp for 1972, it was still rated at 245 hp, which was still considerably downplayed from what it was actually putting out.
IIRC, the Ford engine did take a hit on the dyno, but they figured that its gross hp rating was fairly accurate, once you took the reductions for everything that sapped power.
The Old engine showed the biggest disparity. I forget what the numbers were, but it was enough for Popular Mechanics to say that the engine was seriously over-rated.
I have heard a few stories lately about car engines not putting out the hp they advertised, but it's usually only within 5-10 hp. I think the Mustang, Civic, and Acura TL were all implicated fairly recently. And I've heard some whining about Mazdas, too.
I think nowadays when hp gets overinflated, it's an honest mistake or oversight, and not advertising spin. Often I think something happens like an engine gets certified, but then some minor last second change gets made that reduces the hp, such as to the exhaust, intake, computer, etc.
Dyno results are SOOOOOO tricky. You can set up a dyno to give you whatever number you want. What would be interesting is to put some of those old cars on modern dynos, run by disinterested parties, just to see what numbers come up. I bet most hobbyists would be quite disappointed.
I've heard that, but wouldn't a dyno test done by someone like popular mechanics be pretty impartial? Unless they were rooting for a favorite, I guess?
Just out of curiosity, how exactly do they set up a dyno to put out different readings? Seems to me that whatever the car puts out at the drive wheels at whatever rpm is it what it puts out. How would they fake that?
So who/what can you believe, when it comes to advertising? Isn't there a "Truth In Advertising" law that applies to horsepower and torque? One would think that there would have been a movement to standardize how the outputs are obtained, long before now?
Well given that dynos are really run under laboratory conditions, I don't think you can legislate standards which are that strict. I mean they don't even license auto mechanics...a 12 year old kid could open a garage and repair your brakes and he does not have to prove competence (although he would have to accept consequences for failure).
Well given that dynos are really run under laboratory conditions, I don't think you can legislate standards which are that strict.
So I take it that means if I decide to blow the 99 bucks to put my LeMans or NYer on the dyno machine at Carlisle this coming car show season, I should take the readings with a considerable grain of salt?
I thought about doing it, just for kicks, when I thought it only cost 20 bucks or so. But I'm to cheap to fork over more.
Well a "grain of salt" in the sense that on another day, with another dyno, you might get a considerably different reading...but I think it would be okay for a "ballpark" kind of thing...
As far as the recent change in HP #s, there was a change in the specifications for how the measurements were taken, and some cars dropped a little - not deliberate falsifying, just a change in procedures. As for differences between dynos, many aren't directly measuring HP, (it's not like you can put it on a scale), they're measuring something that's been calibrated in some (adjustable) way to indicate HP. So one dyno, one day, can be trusted for comparitive numbers for a number of cars (like in the Popular Mechanics article), but it's much more dicy (as several have said) to compare results from different dynos.
Shifty, any thoughts on which 2000 or newer models, other than some exotics, stand a reasonable chance of becoming classics in 2032? Do any cars costing $50,000 or less new stand a chance of becoming classics, in your opinion?
Possibly if their production is limited enough and if they excel in some way, either stylistically or performance-wise. The problem is that even very modest, run of the mill cars these days can blow the doors off 60s muscle cars, so I wonder what in the world "it" will be that will capture the imagination of future collectors. Certainly cars like the Enzo, etc. or McLaren F1...they already have the "buzz"....but really, what new cars today have people tearing the doors off dealerships, outbidding each other, sleeping in doorways to own one? Not too many.
So the collector car hobby could become the victim of overexposure and overindulgence and...competence + mass production.
So I'd say whatever cars are today really electrifying the populace, those are the future collectibles. You can probabaly count those on one hand.
"what new cars today have people tearing the doors off dealerships, outbidding each other, sleeping in doorways to own one?"
The only ones that come close are the Ford F-150, Camry and Accord, but I don't see these becoming classics.
Would it make a difference if we substituted "collector" for "classic"? Corvettes and Mustangs might make the cut then, or the first hybrids, perhaps, although Corvettes go for a little over my arbitrary $50K cutoff.
Ah....no I mean LITERALLY sleeping in doorways and outbidding each other (not a figure of speech)...nobody does that for an F150, but they did for the '65 Mustang and the Shelby Cobra. The only sleeping you'd do with a Camry is while driving one probably. :P
Well "collector" and "classic" have all become very mushy terms but I doubt any modern Corvette will ever be a classic because they make over 34,000 of them every year.
Given how cheap a C4 is right now, even after 23 years, I kinda doubt C5s are going to be appreciating or be "coveted" for a long, long time. The supply is just too abundant for anyone to have to worry about owning one.
Exception: The 40th Anniversary ZR1 Coupe
Exception to Mustang: The '93 Cobra R
But the everyday modern Mustang and Corvette will just become nice old used cars IMO...maybe like an old RX7 or Nissan 280Z is today....interesting but nothin' special.
Datsun was on a role at one time: 510 & 240Z both should be in museums some day. Some breakthrough cars for Japan entering the American market. They were a poor mans BMW sedan, and one heck of a cool sports car. Now I must say the steel is paper thin, so most may have rusted. Don't see too many 260 and 280Z cars these days. Most of them must have meet with the crusher.
The RX-7 model, second to the current one, is sure a beauty. Has to be a collectors car.
The Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and such are obviously sought after. But what of those last years of the Corvair? Is it just me, or was those Monza Coupes kinda cool looking? How many AMX cars are left? And will all this Hemi madness end some day? Hey, 'Cudas and Challenger cars and such are wonderful, but how is it the rush for Mopar the last couple or years. It is not like these cars were suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Great marketing by DamlierChrysler, I suppose. Great to see Darts, Dusters, and Demons again!
One car I never could figure out why it was so special was the '57 Chevy Bel-Air. What is the appeal there? Now a '68 Malibu SS is work of art, as is the Camaro. A Corvette of the 50's is most certainly appealing to the eye. Oh well, to each his or her own -- it's all good :shades: -Loren
It's interesting that rarity sometimes means nothing...there has to be the other side of the equation as well, which is DEMAND.
A 280Z might be rare these days, but nobody cares if they go to the crusher or not, is the point. But for a '68 Chevelle SS or a Hemi Cuda, they'd throw themselves in front of the machinery to save one. Go figure.
The only RX-7 I see as remotely collectible is the RX-7 twin turbo. That was a lovely, fast, competent car...well it blew up a lot but plenty of valuable collector cars do that anyway.
65-69 Corvairs are lovely cars for their time and are sorta kinda "third-tier" collectibles.
I think you have to look at collector cars in "tiers", which means levels of interest and levels of value.
A third-tier collectible means that it's worth more than a used Honda Accord but still cheap enough and plentiful enough that you can go find one in a few days and write a check for it without fainting. A Corvair fits that perfectly.
A second-tier collectible might be like a '65 Mustang coupe, where you have plenty around at reasonable prices but you have to sort through lots of junk and take your time. Second tier cars are rising slowly, slowly, in value.
first-tier cars are ones where you have to shop aggressively and fight it out with your checkbook. Here's 'supply and demand' working full steam to excite the market.
Will Mopars crash to earth? Sure, especially the clones, the 318 Chargers, the Dusters, all that stuff. But the very rare "only 15 made that year" Hemis, no they won't crash. They may DROP but they'll never come down to earth I don't think.
Rarity + Power + Prestige is a winning combo that few old cars have....VERY few.....
One car I never could figure out why it was so special was the '57 Chevy Bel-Air. What is the appeal there?
I can think of a couple of reasons that the '57 Chevy is so enduringly popular. I think the main reason is that the '57 Ford and '57 Plymouth, both of which were wildly popular at the time, were serious rusters. The Ford was popular enough that year to beat Chevy to the #1 spot, and Plymouth hit a new record that year that wouldn't be broken again until twice in the 70's, and then mainly based on the popularity of smaller cars like the Duster.
However, the Fords and Plymouths rusted out something horrible, while the '57 Chevy, which looked horribly out of date at the time, was a fairly solid car. Therefore, once these things hit the used car market, it was much easier to find a nice example of a used Chevy than a Ford or Plymouth.
In 1957, the all-new Ford and Plymouth got a much more massive look than their '56 counterparts, which was the trend of the day. Oddly though, I hear the '57 Plymouth is actually an inch or two shorter than the '55-56. Sure doesn't look it to me, though! The Chevy was just a 3rd year facelift, and a pretty successful one, but still had the upright, stubby looking body.
However, while longer/lower/wider was all the rage in 1957, there was a backlash against it in 1958, as a recession set in, the market was saturated with cars after three strong sales years, and people were just getting fed up with the horsepower wars. It wasn't long before something like a '57 Ford or Plymouth was considered out of style. Usually, things that are ultra-trendy and popular at the time don't wear well with age. I would equate a '57 Chevy to something like khaki pants and a crewcut, whereas a '57 Plymouth or Ford might be more like porkchop sideburns, a wide tab collar and a bright orange pair of pants. There are times when they're the trend of the hour, but when as time marches on, they often don't endure as well over the years.
Also, going back to that big, overbearing style of the Ford/Plymouth, I think by the 60's, that was associated with the type of car your parents drove, and that was uncool. And since the Ford/Plymouth were so popular, there's an awfully good chance they WERE the car your parents drove! So the Chevy, with its trimmer dimensions, was just a hipper car in the 60's, considered more of an intermediate than a full-size, like the Ford/Plymouth. In fact, the 1964 Chevelle was considered to be a reincarnation of the '57 Chevy. Similar trim dimensions, weight, etc.
Another thing was engines. In retrospect, a Chevy smallblock isn't a very durable engine. An old Plymouth wideblock will last forever, and I think the old Ford "Y" block was pretty durable as well. However, the Chevy smallblock was cheap to replace, liked to rev, and could be hot-rodded very easily, plus a vast aftermarket was developed for it. And that has only gotten stronger over the years, as the Chevy smallblock has been in production for decades. In contrast, there just wasn't a whole lot you could do to a Ford "Y" block or the old Mopar wideblock, and as a result there's just not that much aftermarket.
Personally, I'd rather have a '57 Plymouth than a '57 Chevy, because I like the styling better. I think the only thing that really mars the Plymouth are a few details, like the stone shield under the bumper that makes it look like it swallowed a Jeep (fixed for 1958), and the headlight setup that tried to emulate a quad setup but looked a bit odd with its big single headlight and its smaller turn signal that was styled a bit like a headlight (also fixed for 1958). But otherwise I just like the sleeker, cleaner body of the '57 Plymouth better than the Chevy. I think the only body style where the Chevy looks better is in 2-door sedan form. The Plymouth 2-door sedan has an odd profile with two rear side windows. One rolls down and one doesn't. Just looks a bit odd compared to the Chevy.
I'd take a '57 Chevy over a Ford, though. I just can't stand that bug-eyed look of the '57 Ford. If they sunk those headlights back a few inches, like they did on the Mercury, it would make a world of difference.
'57 Chevy = "icon". It's like Marilyn Monroe and a smiley face. It's everywhere, in ads, T-shirts, probably on the moon and in the Amazon jungle as well. It is the triumph of marketing.
Icons take years to build, it doesn't happen overnight. Old Corvettes, Harleys, Rat Fink hotrods---same thing.
"...the '57 Ford and '57 Plymouth, both of which were wildly popular at the time, were serious rusters."
The Plymouth was worse than the Ford, by a considerable margin. In fact, all '57-'59 Mopars were really bad when it came to rust resistance. I think these were no better than the early Aspen/Volares, except a lot less salt was used to treat the roads in the '60s than later, so the problem wasn't as evident. Things may have improved with the introduction of unibodies in the '60 model year, although I don't know to what degree. Rust resistance was one of the advertising points of the Mopar unibodies, so I presume that they were better than the '57-'59s, but it's hard to know because of the increasing use of road salt into the '80s, and maybe beyond. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though they use a little more every year even now.
I'll take your word for it, andre, that the '57 Chevy was more rust resistant than the Ford of that year, although I've never read anything to that effect, nor did I observe it in the Upper Midwest.
Since you haven't mentioned any specific models, Shifty, I interpret that as meaning that it's possible that no '00-'07 car will be even a #3 collectible in 25 years. Or, to clarify, you don't preclude that one or some will be collectibles, but none currently stands out as an obvious contender right now, correct? How sad!
I think that there's just no rational explanation for the popularity of the '57 Bel Air. It's a combination of marketing and emotion, plus a dose of nostaligia, rather than great design. In short, it just happened to click. Just because! The nostalgia factor isn't exclusive to the '57 Chevy, to be sure, but together with the other too factors, it may have more of a synergystic effect than with other old cars. My 2 cents.
The '57 Fairlane 500 and Belvedere looked every bit as good as the Bel Air. Same holds true for the '55s and '56s.
Maybe but you'll never see those cars on a Mel's Drive In t-shirt or the CD cover of a "Greatest Hits of the 50s".
Ultimately, all ideas of being "collectible" are in people's heads.
If you based "collectibility" on RATIONAL terms, you'd have to include things like wooden ship models and jewel-encrusted necklaces, which even the biggest dope can tell took lots of work and skill, and exclude things like old Barbie dolls, which are really only plastic junk.
But it's not rational, so a '57 Chevy is more valuable and "better" (irrationally) than a '57 Ford.
So when I say "Power + Prestige + Style = collectibility", only the power part is measurable and rational. Prestige and Style are all mental constructs.
Comments
I still think that's a bit optimistic though, at least in 0-60. The '51-52 Windsor was the same sized body as the Firedome, and the 331 Hemi only had 20 more hp (180) than the DeSoto 276.1 Hemi (160). So it seems odd to me that the Saratoga could hit 60 in 10 seconds, while the Firedome took 17.
Of course, who did the original test can make a huge difference. If Motortrend or C&D or their forefathers tested the Saratoga and Consumer Reports tested the Firedome, heck that could be most of the difference right there! :P
~110 mph sounds reasonable for the Saratoga, which, if accurate, makes >100 but <110 plausible for the Firedome DeSoto.
Still, 180 HP pushing 4,000 lbs past 100 mph would require tall gearing seems to me....which would mean not so great acceleration. That's a lot of weight to move from inertia.
To be fair, for 1952 that "little" Hemi was a great engine compared to the primitive wood stoves installed in most domestic cars of the time.
Other great engines IMO for the time were of course the short-stroke Olds V8, the Cadillac V8, the venerable Hudson flathead (which could put out some power, unlike most FHs)and the brilliant Jaguar dohc inline 6. The first Ferrari V-12s were appearing about at this time, too, as was the world's first V-6, from Lancia.
In 1954 Chrysler got the 331 Hemi up to 235 hp, so I'm sure that must've been pretty gutsy. And of course, in 1955 history was made (well, domestic history, at least) when the C300's 331 put out 300 hp, the first production car to do so.
I think those old 2-speed transmissions used in 1954-56 must've held back a lot of power compared to the 3-speeds that started showing up in '57. IIRC first gear was 1.72:1 in the 2-speed and 2.45:1 in the 3-speed. They'd give the 2-speed a quicker rear-end, but still not enough to make up the difference. In the 1956 300B though, they did offer a rear-end of something like 6.07:1. That must've made it pretty brutal from 0-60, at least. But then I'd imagine at 60 mph in top gear, you'd be pulling about 4500 rpms, and you'd redline long before seeing 100.
I'd imagine that the high-output versions of the Hemi, like the Letter Series, Adventurer, and D-500 options, could rev better, but I think most of the "regular" Hemis, hit their peak hp around 4400-4800 rpm and redlined around 5500.
I don't know about the tall gearing requirement for high top speed, because of the poor aerodynamics of those '50s cars. As you correctly pointed out in an earlier message, Shifty, these engines didn't rev too high, but I'm thinking that most of the new OHV V8s revved enough to push those beasts - albeit reluctantly - to 100 + a few if, IF their gearing was low enough to compensate for the wind resistance. I don't think they would have had enough power to hit 100 with tall gearing, but they generally had lower gearing than the cars of the '60s and later.
By the way, the relatively small displacement 160 hp DOHC early '50s Jag Mark (whatever) sedan could top 100, and could spank the early Mopar hemis and GM V8s at higher speeds.
I imagine that the twin carb Hudson Hornet, and maybe the straight 8 Parkards of the early '50s could also squeak past the century mark, but I'm only guessing. I think a larger percentage of Hudsons and Packards were equipped with manual transmissions than their Big 3 counterparts. What do you think, Shifty?
But on the downside, those short ratios meant that the engines hit their peak power at a fairly low speed. I think those early Hemis usually peaked around 4400 rpm. And if I'm doing the math right, that would come right at about 100 mph with a 3.73:1 rear end. And assuming I did the math right. I looked up the tire specs for a '52 Windsor at Cokertire.com. The stock tire was an 8.20-15, which they say has a diameter of about 29". So that would put it at about 700 revs per mile (and 700 revs per minute at 60 mph) So I figure if you do 100/60*700*3.73, that'll roughly give you the engine rpm at 100 mph. Of course, it doesn't take into account stuff like wind resistance, friction, slippage on the tires, etc.
Anyway, a slightly taller (numerically lower) rear end might achieve a higher top speed. For instance, a 3.54:1 rear in the same car would be doing about 4100 rpm@100, so it might hit its 4400 peak around 108-110 mph. Above that though, I guess once your revving past your peak, you're going to lose power...and speed.
But then if you put some really tall rear-end in, like a 2.45:1 (that's whay my '79 NYer has, and was probably unheard of back in the early 50's), it might only be pulling around 2800 rpm@100 mph in theory, but in actuality it might not put out enough power at 2800 rpm to get to 100 mph. And it might not be able to downshift, either, because the lower gear might over-rev it.
At least, that's my guess on it.
Your comments regarding weight and acceleration are correct.
But for the most part, I'd imagine the typical axle of an early 50's V-8 was in the mid-to-high 3.XX range.
Oh yeah, I forgot about overdrive. That probably allowed them to use quicker axle ratios for better low-end performance, while cutting down the highway revs for better economy. In the 1980's, when overdrive transmissions started coming back into style, Ford took advantage of that. IIRC, the big Fords with the 4-speed overdrive used an axle of around 3.00:1, which helped both low end performance and fuel economy. When GM started using them though, they tended to use the same tall axles, so you didn't get any low-end performance, but at highway speeds the engine was revving so low it felt like it was going to stall! I think that helped GM with the CAFE crap, though.
3.54 seems about right for the '53 Firedome, which would have permitted it to top 100 mph. I think that a 3.73 ratio would have too, if only modestly.
To clarify, my reference to overdrive related to manual transmissions, not the 4-speed OD automatics introduced in late the early '80s. Engagement of OD, back in the day, generally occurred at a minimum speed of ~28 mph, and was similar to shifting the Chrysler semi-automatic; you lifted your foot from the acclerator and waited for a clicking sound. The click signaled that the upshift had occurred. Downshifts out of OD occurred by flooring the accelerator, or by dropping below the minimum speed. OD could be engaged in any of the three forward gears, essentially providing six forward ratios, although some flathead sixes struggled to reach the minimum speed in first, or simply couldn't. All of them could reach it easily in second, thereby providing a minimum of five forward ratios; first, regular second and OD second (the equivalent of second and third), and regular third and OD third (equivalent to fourth and fifth). The vast majority of drivers only engaged OD third, which, of course, was the purpose of OD. OD first and second were only for fooling around, although they could be useful on mountain roads. The maximum speed for engaging OD corresponded with the maximum speed the car could go in the non-OD gears. Since the norm for American cars was only three forward gears, versus four for most European cars, OD was a useful feature, if somewhat cumbersome.
On the issue of acceleration, while its true that the V8s of the '50s ran out of breath quickly, they had decent torque.
Gee, driving those two-ton sponges on bias-ply tires at 100 mph....phew...no wonder they call all the race drivers of those days "The Men of Iron".
My fave 50s engine was the fuel-injected Chevy 283 putting out one horsepower per cubic inch. A milestone, certainly.
Help me out here, andre, but I think Dodge dropped the hemi for '55, at least in some models, if not most or all models, and adopted the new for '55 polysherical engine. The poly engine was cheaper to build than the hemi. I know you couldn't get the hemi in the '55 Plymouth, only the poly in the V8. Maybe the hemi wouldn't have made any difference, but in adopting the "Forward Look", the '55 Mopars were considerably larger and heavier than the '53s and '54s. They also had a little more horsepower, but maybe not enough to compensate for the added weight and wind resistance. What I'm saying is that the '55 Dodge V8 may have been a little slower at the top end than the earlier V8s, but that's just speculation on my part. That said, if your speedo couldn't hit 100, I'm thinking there may have been something wrong with your car, Shifty, because given the speed inflation that was common in the speedometer calibrations of that period, your car may have topped out at ~90. while I wouldn't stake my life on it, I think the '55 Royal Lancer could go a bit faster than that. Now, certainly high altitude would have detracted from your car's potential, as you indicated, so that may explain why you couldn't go faster.
but I have driven the legendary 426 Hemi in a couple of 60s Mopars and they are in a different universe from the old 50s Hemis in terms of power...it's like a 36 hp VW bug vs. a Porsche turbo. The 426 power is massive, overpowering, furious....
The Lancer was pretty neat...it had this little shift lever that came out of the dashboard, pointed right at you. I'm sure at 5,500 feet it was struggling a bit, but you know, it hauled up the mountains pretty well as I recall. I also remember the script on the fender was anodized gold color and that the valve covers on the V8 were huge.
The 5500 altitude explains the performance shortfall.
Of course, it's better if this were done on original cars than on recent restorations, because contemporary restorations often exceed the original factory standards by a wide margin.
HANDLING AT HIGH SPEED:-- well you can STIFFEN an old American car up so that it would handle pretty fair on smooth roads but there's only so much you can do with the 50s type of suspension, which is really 1930s suspension. And then there's the problem of weight and braking on a 50s car.
As I've said before (yawn), any mechanic from 1915 could be dug up and work on a 1965 Mustang, no problem.
And WEIGHT was a factor, too. No matter how exquisite the suspension and braking of a modern car is, if it weighs 5000 lbs you are going to have to work your butt off in the twisties.
I think the classic battles at Lime Rock between powerful Corvettes and dinky little MINIs illustrates the problem. The Corvettes left the MINIS in the dust on the straights, and by the time of the curves, the MINIs used to pass the Vettes...and then it starts all over again....
As for quality, for the most part American cars of the '30s, '40s and '50s (pre'57) enjoyed a reputation for high quality and reliability. Some of the European cars of that period were more technologically advanced in some areas, but their quality and reliability wasn't superior. Also, as noted in my previous message, American cars were more innovative in comfort and convenience features. These things mattered to American motorists.
But you know, for the price, you still got a lot of car in 1958...some might say TOO MUCH car---LOL!....so you have to give credit to American engineering in that sense....it's like ordering a new Peugeot and the factory saying "You want to supersize that? No extra charge!"
Also American cars could get 100,000 miles out of a $2 part---it wasn't pretty but it worked for as long as it was likely the rest of the car would last before rust and calamity overtook it.
Those cheapo stamped rocker arms on Chevies? Brilliant! Lasted the live of the engine unless you over-revved them pretty mercilessly! No they weren't the cast aluminum of some Alfa Romeo but they worked and costs 1/10th th price. But pretty and well made? No, not at all.
So you're right...you can't view the past with knowledge of the future...you have to judge the 1950s by 1950s standards.
Besides to judge quality you need contrasts, and Americans didn't get a taste of qualty automobiles from abroad until the late 1960s.
I think the 1955 270.1 was still a Hemi-head engine, but in 1956, Dodge offered a 270.1 and a 315. IIRC, the 270.1 became a poly-head engine for 1956, while the 315 enlargement was a Hemi-only, I believe. In 1957, the 315 was bored out to a 325. In poly-head version it offered 245 hp with a 2-bbl and 260 with the 4-bbl. There was a Hemi version that put out 285/310 (I think that was 4-bbl/dual quad)
The 1955 Plymouth V-8 was a poly-head unit, offered in 241/260 CID configurations, and the 1955 Chrysler Windsor fielded a 301 poly. The 331 remained a Hemi, but in 1956, it went poly while the 354 enlargement was a Hemi-head. The same thing happened in 1957, when the big 392 was offered, as a Hemi only. The 354 became a poly-head that year in Windsors and Saratogas, although Dodge offered a 340 hp Hemi version of it for the D-501.
As for the 1955 Dodge, its 270.1 was offered in 3 hp configurations that year. 175 hp in the cheaper models, and 183 was standard in the Custom Royal. A "Power Pack" option, which consisted of a 4-bbl carb, boosted it to 193 hp.
Quickest way to tell a Hemi-head from a poly head is to just look at the valve covers. The Hemi covers are big, wide rectangular things that have a separate cover that hides the spark plugs and wires, giving the top of the engine a very clean look. The Hemi cover has kind of a jagged saw-tooth pattern on the outer side, and the spark plugs are exposed.
Best way to think of the old Mopar Hemi is basically to look at it as a Chevy smallblock. Just like the Chevy smallblock, there were mundane family-car versions and there were blistering high-performance versions. It's a bit foolish to make the comparison to something like a 2-bbl Hemi out of a DeSoto Firedome or Dodge Custom Royal to something like the 426, which was a mildly toned-down racecar engine, and really not designed for street use. A better comparison would be something like the 300 Letter Series engines, the 1957 Adventurer engine, or the D-500 engines.
As for Chevy's claim of 1 hp per cubic inch in 1957, remember they only did that with fuel injection, and that was a $500+ option. Chrysler actually EXCEEDED 1 hp per cubic inch in 1956, with the optional 355 hp 354 Hemi. 340 hp was standard. And DeSoto was the first to offer 1 hp per cubic inch as standard equipment in 1957, with the Adventurer's 345 hp 345 CID Hemi, which had dual quads. For some strange reason though, DeSoto didn't use that 1 hp to any marketing advantage, like Chevy did. One reason could be that by that time, divisional competition was starting to rear its head at Chrysler, and maybe it didn't look good that the DeSoto offered 1 hp per cubic inch standard, while the much pricier, more prestigious 300C couldn't even do it with an optional engine?
The 392 Hemi did come close, with a 390 hp version. It was essentially a racecar engine though, and was actually sold with a warning that it was intended mainly for racing and not really suitable for everyday street use, similar to the later 426 Hemi conversion of the Wedge. For street use, they recommended the 375 hp version.
The Hemi cover has kind of a jagged saw-tooth pattern on the outer side, and the spark plugs are exposed..."
Did you mean Poly cover"?
An impressive engine, and perhaps unexpected from GM, but wasn't this engine problematic? I don't recall exactly what the problem was, but I think it related to the non electronic (mechanical?) fuel injection system, and not the engine itself. Maybe fuel management was deficient under certain conditions, due to the primitive nature of the system, but I'm not sure.
As for the 283 fuelie, I don't think it was too problematic as far as fuel injection goes. It was a mechanical setup, and more reliable than the electronic Bendix fuel injection that Chrysler used in 1958.
Were dual-quad carburetors hard to keep adjusted and in-tune? I've heard that the triple 2bbl carbs, most notably Pontiacs Tri-Power, were hard to keep adjusted, but I've never heard anything similar about dual quads.
IIRC, the Chevy 283 put out 283 hp with fuel injection, and 270 with dual quads. In contrast, the '58 Plymouth 350 Wedge had 305 hp (with dual quads I think), or 315 with fuel injection. I think the Plymouth was a fairly mild setup though, to keep it from embarrassing the bigger Mopar flagships. The Dodge D-500 that year had a 361 that put out 320 hp with dual quads or 333 with fuel injection. The DeSoto Adventurer also used a 361, in a hotter state of tune that put out 345 hp with the dual quads and 355 with fuel injection. And that year's 300D put out 380 hp with dual quads, or 390 with fuel injection (the same as the previous year's hotter dual quad option)
I used to think that the Mopar fuel injection was a bit of a ripoff, because it was something like a $400-500 option and for the most part only got you 10 more hp. But it looks like the Chevy FI was at least as pricey.
Supposedly the Mopar fuel injection was so troublesome that all but a handful were converted back to dual-quads. I've always wondered if the manufacturer gave these buyers a refund on the fuel injection price? I know I'd be pretty pissed if I forked over $400-500 (probably $2000-2500 or more in today's dollars) for a factory performance upgrade, only to have it converted back.
I remember an issue of Popular Mechanics where they put a Chrysler 340, some Ford engine (390 I think), and some Oldsmobile engine (a 425?) on a dyno to see what kind of numbers they really put out. The Chrysler was rated at 270-275 gross, and it actually put out something like 245, at the wheels! That's really impressive, considering that going from gross to net hp, you often lose 20-30%, but even net hp isn't measured at the wheels. Once you factor in the transmission, driveshaft, differential, etc, you can still easily lose another 20-30%. That shows just how under-rated the 340 was. When the 340 went to net hp for 1972, it was still rated at 245 hp, which was still considerably downplayed from what it was actually putting out.
IIRC, the Ford engine did take a hit on the dyno, but they figured that its gross hp rating was fairly accurate, once you took the reductions for everything that sapped power.
The Old engine showed the biggest disparity. I forget what the numbers were, but it was enough for Popular Mechanics to say that the engine was seriously over-rated.
I have heard a few stories lately about car engines not putting out the hp they advertised, but it's usually only within 5-10 hp. I think the Mustang, Civic, and Acura TL were all implicated fairly recently. And I've heard some whining about Mazdas, too.
I think nowadays when hp gets overinflated, it's an honest mistake or oversight, and not advertising spin. Often I think something happens like an engine gets certified, but then some minor last second change gets made that reduces the hp, such as to the exhaust, intake, computer, etc.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly do they set up a dyno to put out different readings? Seems to me that whatever the car puts out at the drive wheels at whatever rpm is it what it puts out. How would they fake that?
Some of these are related to outright fraud, others just to incompetence:
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0402tur_dyno_tricks_problems/
So I take it that means if I decide to blow the 99 bucks to put my LeMans or NYer on the dyno machine at Carlisle this coming car show season, I should take the readings with a considerable grain of salt?
I thought about doing it, just for kicks, when I thought it only cost 20 bucks or so. But I'm to cheap to fork over more.
So the collector car hobby could become the victim of overexposure and overindulgence and...competence + mass production.
So I'd say whatever cars are today really electrifying the populace, those are the future collectibles. You can probabaly count those on one hand.
The only ones that come close are the Ford F-150, Camry and Accord, but I don't see these becoming classics.
Would it make a difference if we substituted "collector" for "classic"? Corvettes and Mustangs might make the cut then, or the first hybrids, perhaps, although Corvettes go for a little over my arbitrary $50K cutoff.
Well "collector" and "classic" have all become very mushy terms but I doubt any modern Corvette will ever be a classic because they make over 34,000 of them every year.
Given how cheap a C4 is right now, even after 23 years, I kinda doubt C5s are going to be appreciating or be "coveted" for a long, long time. The supply is just too abundant for anyone to have to worry about owning one.
Exception: The 40th Anniversary ZR1 Coupe
Exception to Mustang: The '93 Cobra R
But the everyday modern Mustang and Corvette will just become nice old used cars IMO...maybe like an old RX7 or Nissan 280Z is today....interesting but nothin' special.
The RX-7 model, second to the current one, is sure a beauty. Has to be a collectors car.
The Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and such are obviously sought after. But what of those last years of the Corvair? Is it just me, or was those Monza Coupes kinda cool looking? How many AMX cars are left? And will all this Hemi madness end some day? Hey, 'Cudas and Challenger cars and such are wonderful, but how is it the rush for Mopar the last couple or years. It is not like these cars were suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Great marketing by DamlierChrysler, I suppose. Great to see Darts, Dusters, and Demons again!
One car I never could figure out why it was so special was the '57 Chevy Bel-Air. What is the appeal there? Now a '68 Malibu SS is work of art, as is the Camaro. A Corvette of the 50's is most certainly appealing to the eye.
Oh well, to each his or her own -- it's all good :shades:
-Loren
A 280Z might be rare these days, but nobody cares if they go to the crusher or not, is the point. But for a '68 Chevelle SS or a Hemi Cuda, they'd throw themselves in front of the machinery to save one. Go figure.
The only RX-7 I see as remotely collectible is the RX-7 twin turbo. That was a lovely, fast, competent car...well it blew up a lot but plenty of valuable collector cars do that anyway.
65-69 Corvairs are lovely cars for their time and are sorta kinda "third-tier" collectibles.
I think you have to look at collector cars in "tiers", which means levels of interest and levels of value.
A third-tier collectible means that it's worth more than a used Honda Accord but still cheap enough and plentiful enough that you can go find one in a few days and write a check for it without fainting. A Corvair fits that perfectly.
A second-tier collectible might be like a '65 Mustang coupe, where you have plenty around at reasonable prices but you have to sort through lots of junk and take your time. Second tier cars are rising slowly, slowly, in value.
first-tier cars are ones where you have to shop aggressively and fight it out with your checkbook. Here's 'supply and demand' working full steam to excite the market.
Will Mopars crash to earth? Sure, especially the clones, the 318 Chargers, the Dusters, all that stuff. But the very rare "only 15 made that year" Hemis, no they won't crash. They may DROP but they'll never come down to earth I don't think.
Rarity + Power + Prestige is a winning combo that few old cars have....VERY few.....
I can think of a couple of reasons that the '57 Chevy is so enduringly popular. I think the main reason is that the '57 Ford and '57 Plymouth, both of which were wildly popular at the time, were serious rusters. The Ford was popular enough that year to beat Chevy to the #1 spot, and Plymouth hit a new record that year that wouldn't be broken again until twice in the 70's, and then mainly based on the popularity of smaller cars like the Duster.
However, the Fords and Plymouths rusted out something horrible, while the '57 Chevy, which looked horribly out of date at the time, was a fairly solid car. Therefore, once these things hit the used car market, it was much easier to find a nice example of a used Chevy than a Ford or Plymouth.
In 1957, the all-new Ford and Plymouth got a much more massive look than their '56 counterparts, which was the trend of the day. Oddly though, I hear the '57 Plymouth is actually an inch or two shorter than the '55-56. Sure doesn't look it to me, though! The Chevy was just a 3rd year facelift, and a pretty successful one, but still had the upright, stubby looking body.
However, while longer/lower/wider was all the rage in 1957, there was a backlash against it in 1958, as a recession set in, the market was saturated with cars after three strong sales years, and people were just getting fed up with the horsepower wars. It wasn't long before something like a '57 Ford or Plymouth was considered out of style. Usually, things that are ultra-trendy and popular at the time don't wear well with age. I would equate a '57 Chevy to something like khaki pants and a crewcut, whereas a '57 Plymouth or Ford might be more like porkchop sideburns, a wide tab collar and a bright orange pair of pants. There are times when they're the trend of the hour, but when as time marches on, they often don't endure as well over the years.
Also, going back to that big, overbearing style of the Ford/Plymouth, I think by the 60's, that was associated with the type of car your parents drove, and that was uncool. And since the Ford/Plymouth were so popular, there's an awfully good chance they WERE the car your parents drove! So the Chevy, with its trimmer dimensions, was just a hipper car in the 60's, considered more of an intermediate than a full-size, like the Ford/Plymouth. In fact, the 1964 Chevelle was considered to be a reincarnation of the '57 Chevy. Similar trim dimensions, weight, etc.
Another thing was engines. In retrospect, a Chevy smallblock isn't a very durable engine. An old Plymouth wideblock will last forever, and I think the old Ford "Y" block was pretty durable as well. However, the Chevy smallblock was cheap to replace, liked to rev, and could be hot-rodded very easily, plus a vast aftermarket was developed for it. And that has only gotten stronger over the years, as the Chevy smallblock has been in production for decades. In contrast, there just wasn't a whole lot you could do to a Ford "Y" block or the old Mopar wideblock, and as a result there's just not that much aftermarket.
Personally, I'd rather have a '57 Plymouth than a '57 Chevy, because I like the styling better. I think the only thing that really mars the Plymouth are a few details, like the stone shield under the bumper that makes it look like it swallowed a Jeep (fixed for 1958), and the headlight setup that tried to emulate a quad setup but looked a bit odd with its big single headlight and its smaller turn signal that was styled a bit like a headlight (also fixed for 1958). But otherwise I just like the sleeker, cleaner body of the '57 Plymouth better than the Chevy. I think the only body style where the Chevy looks better is in 2-door sedan form. The Plymouth 2-door sedan has an odd profile with two rear side windows. One rolls down and one doesn't. Just looks a bit odd compared to the Chevy.
I'd take a '57 Chevy over a Ford, though. I just can't stand that bug-eyed look of the '57 Ford. If they sunk those headlights back a few inches, like they did on the Mercury, it would make a world of difference.
Icons take years to build, it doesn't happen overnight. Old Corvettes, Harleys, Rat Fink hotrods---same thing.
The Plymouth was worse than the Ford, by a considerable margin. In fact, all '57-'59 Mopars were really bad when it came to rust resistance. I think these were no better than the early Aspen/Volares, except a lot less salt was used to treat the roads in the '60s than later, so the problem wasn't as evident. Things may have improved with the introduction of unibodies in the '60 model year, although I don't know to what degree. Rust resistance was one of the advertising points of the Mopar unibodies, so I presume that they were better than the '57-'59s, but it's hard to know because of the increasing use of road salt into the '80s, and maybe beyond. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though they use a little more every year even now.
I'll take your word for it, andre, that the '57 Chevy was more rust resistant than the Ford of that year, although I've never read anything to that effect, nor did I observe it in the Upper Midwest.
The '57 Fairlane 500 and Belvedere looked every bit as good as the Bel Air. Same holds true for the '55s and '56s.
Ultimately, all ideas of being "collectible" are in people's heads.
If you based "collectibility" on RATIONAL terms, you'd have to include things like wooden ship models and jewel-encrusted necklaces, which even the biggest dope can tell took lots of work and skill, and exclude things like old Barbie dolls, which are really only plastic junk.
But it's not rational, so a '57 Chevy is more valuable and "better" (irrationally) than a '57 Ford.
So when I say "Power + Prestige + Style = collectibility", only the power part is measurable and rational. Prestige and Style are all mental constructs.