Strange Cars from the past...
isellhondas
Member Posts: 20,342
Last Sunday, I attended a neighborhood old car show as I usually do when something REALLY caught my attention. It was like a time capsule had been opened!
A 40,000 mile MINT, TOTALLY ORIGINAL 1962 Pontiac Le Mans Convertable!
It had the oddball 4 cyl engine with the automatic transmission in the rear!
Those used a "rope drive" driveshaft that was only about an inch around! Talk about a one off, STRANGE car! Those 4 cyls were a 389 cut in half, literally!
The trunk was open and the original decals instructing how to check the auto trans fluid were intact. You checked the fluid by removing a half dozen sheet metal screws and pullin ogg a small metal plate.
The car was beautiful and almost too nice to drive on the streets!
Talk about rare!
A 40,000 mile MINT, TOTALLY ORIGINAL 1962 Pontiac Le Mans Convertable!
It had the oddball 4 cyl engine with the automatic transmission in the rear!
Those used a "rope drive" driveshaft that was only about an inch around! Talk about a one off, STRANGE car! Those 4 cyls were a 389 cut in half, literally!
The trunk was open and the original decals instructing how to check the auto trans fluid were intact. You checked the fluid by removing a half dozen sheet metal screws and pullin ogg a small metal plate.
The car was beautiful and almost too nice to drive on the streets!
Talk about rare!
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
GM was certainly innovative at this time...with the Tempest and the Corvair of course, and the turbocharging they did in the Corvair and the Oldsmobile.
Yes, thse made the BEST prybars EVER! I remember when I was in the tool business, once in awhile, I would see one in a shop. The old timers were surprised when I knew what it was!
The following year, they actually put some 326's in those. I always wondered how that "rope" could transfer that much power? They wer, no doubt, thicker on the V-8's.
The only thing I could see that wasn't correct on that Le Mans were the tires. The originals had been replaced with wide whitewalls. 1962 was the year everyone went to the 1" whitewalls. Still, the car was beautiful. Black with a red interior and white convertable top.
Anyone ever heard of Chevy's "Mystery Engine"? I think that turned out to be the 427 in the end.
The GMC 336 truck engine bore was 3.875 and 3.563 stroke for 336 CID. Pic is from a 1958 GMC Suburban.
The Pontiac 350 engine which appeared in 1968 did have a bore of 3.875 and the 1957 347 V-8 had a 3.563 stroke so these weren't unfamiliar dimensions for Pontiac.
Never heard the 336/Tempest story before, but I knew a guy who had one of the strange "rope drive" Tempests with a 195 4-cyl engine.
So, that was a Corvair transaxle lurking in the back of the Tempest - swing axles and all?
Yeah, but I think there was a ruling in 1964 on the intermediates that none of them could have an engine displacement larger than 400 cubic inches. Maybe there was a similar 327 rule for the 1963 compacts? I don't think the '63 Buick/Olds compacts got anything bigger than that little Buick 215 V-8, and the Chevy II wouldn't get a V-8 until 1964, and then it was just a 283.
Even though a Tempest wouldn't compete directly with a Corvette, I could understand GM's concern if it got engines that were too big and powerful. Back then, people put a lot (too much, perhaps) emphasis on engine displacement and advertised horsepower, a figure that was often the whim of a marketing manager's mood that day rather than any actual testing. The Corvette was all-new for 1963, so I could also see GM not wanting anything else out there that would steal its thunder.
FWIW, the '63 Corvette's base engine was a 327 with 250 hp. The Tempest 326 V-8 had 260. So, for people who are just into bragging rights and "Mine's bigger", the Tempest might have put some pressure on the Corvette.
Sure, nothing like a Cadillac or other full-sized car would cmpete with a Corvette, but for somebody wanting something smaller, youthful, and sporty, a 326 Tempest certainly could have put some pressure on it. And the 326 Tempest was pretty popular that year...that engine accounted for just over half of all Tempest sales. It showed that there was definitely a demand for a big-engined, small car, and no doubt helped pave the way for the likes of the '64 GTO.
I always wondered why they just didn't have a conventional transmission bolted up the the engine?
These really must have been strange on the ones that had manuals. Imagine trying to adjust all of that shift linkage etc?
One reason that Pontiac tried that was for better weight distribution. with the "slant four", I think weight distribution was a perfect 50/50. The 326 V-8 shifted it to something like 54/46.
Also, back then, they were starting to make attempts at improved space efficiency, and experimenting around with different things. There was a minor wave of downsizing that hit Detroit in the early 60's. Not nearly as major as the late 70's, but the early 60's did see the advent of compact and midsized cars, as well as a slight reduction in size of some of the larger cars. Fords and Chevies got bigger but for a brief moment, cars like Chrysler, Buick, Olds, and Mercury, and even Cadillac and Lincoln, got smaller. However, a lot of people still wanted a roomy car, and scoffed at the smaller offerings. Moving the transaxle to the rear of the Tempest eliminated the transmission hump up front and since the rope drive shaft had some flex to it, it hung down a bit and allowed for a smaller driveshaft hump.
GM also played around with space efficiency with its full-sized cars. That dreaded "Slim Jim" hydramatic that went into '61-64 Oldsmobiles and Pontiac Catalinas and Grand Prixes was a smaller unit than the old 4-speed Hydramatic that was still used in Cadillacs and Bonnevilles and Star Chiefs. You can really tell the difference when you look inside the cars, as the tranny hump is much smaller with the Slim Jim.
Of course, the Tempest did morph into the GTO later on (a tip 'o the hat to John Delorean) and then the Pontiac did become a serious competitor to the Corvette. The GTO was an option on the Tempest for a year or two and then became its own distinct make. So even GM was anxious to shed the lame Tempest image.
Pontiac 336 TRUCK ENGINE: -- live and learn. Thanks for posting that info!
Maybe not so anxious...my grandparents had a '67 Tempest and then a '71 Tempest. I think the Tempest name was used up through '72, so I guess its name wasn't TOO lame. It was just used as a broad model designation for the entire compact, and then midsized, Pontiac lineup. Pontiac would just stick additional names on like LeMans, GTO, GT37, etc, to demote nicer models. Essentially what Chevy did with the Chevelle designation, which eventually became the Malibu.
Interestingly, the Chevelle nameplate came to mean more than the Malibu one, even though the 2nd one was supposed to upgrade the first.
You just never know how the public is going to perceive your product.
The appeal of the Tempest to me, at least in the beginning, was the technical innovation.
But GM quickly retreated into the old front engine/RWD ladder-frame formula that has worked so well since the days of the crank handle.
The original Tempest could have been the American Alfa and the Corvair the American Porsche, but alas....
It seems like the domestics almost always demote their nameplates over the years, but never take them upscale. For instance, Bel Air, Impala, Fairlane, Galaxie, etc, started off as top-shelf names, but were gradually demoted as new names came in (Caprice, LTD, etc).
I guess you could argue that the T-bird name went upscale in '58, and kept ascending, at least through the 1976 bodystyle. And the final 2-seater, which tried to return to its roots, was more upscale than the post-1976 T-birds.
Talk about strange cars---the '58 T-Bird was bizarre. It's interesting isn't it how in 1958 any number of makes underwent a drastic turn for the worst, and quite suddenly. I mean, the 55-57 Birds were so clean and neat and "small" and tasteful, and then, that...that....THING in 1958......and the '57 Chevy, while a bit much in the fins, suddenly turns into a one-year-only bit of design chaos.
Yep, '58 was a great year for strange automobiles. Was there something in the water in Detroit?
Oh, I agree that a lot of the magic was gone by 1965 or so (personally, I like the '66 the best out of the '64-66 style though). But the car did continue to sell as it evolved to adapt to the ever changing marketplace. The '67-71 models seemed a step upscale in prestige/luxury, although they lost much of their sportiness by that time. And the '72-76 model was essentially a poor man's Mark IV, so that's about as upscale as it ever got.
The name got moved way downscale with the '77-79 T-bird, which went on to become the best selling T-bird of all time, as more of a Monte Carlo contender than a Riviera/Toronado-class car. And from then on until the end in 1997 or so, it pretty much just remained a Monte Carlo/Grand Prix type of car. Or sort of a 2-door Taurus. Nowhere near the prestige level that the 50's, 60's, or pre-1977 models had been. But then the 2-seater that came out for 2002 or whenever (I forget now) did seem an attempt to restore some prestige to the nameplate.
Basically, I was just referring to the price level that the T-bird was at, more than popularity. Kinda like how the Bel Air started off as a limited production hardtop, then became the top Chevy trim series. Then it got demoted when the Impala came out, and demoted again when the Caprice came out.
Seems like domestic nameplates almost always get pushed downscale in the hierarchy, but never work their way up.
Well, at one time, those sold well. Nowadays it seems a stigma, and they only sell well to rental fleets! One of my relatives, who's also my godmother, used to have a 1978 or '79 T-bird, one of those special edition models. It was either a "Diamond Jubilee" or "Heritage" or something like that. Fully loaded, with the padded roof that blocked out the rear quarter windows, TRUNK carpeting that would probably make the interior carpeting on many modern luxury cars look pathetic in comparison, and an interior that wasn't quite what I'd call velour...more like a felt, kinda like my buddy's '78 Mark V Diamond Jubilee. It was burgundy, only had about 20-30,000 miles on it, and looked brand-new. She decided to sell it, and only wanted around $3000-3500 for it.
Looking back, sometimes I wish I had bought it. I think she ultimately put it up for sale asking "best offer" and someone gave her $5,000 for it! It was a beautiful car, and every once in awhile I'll see a nice '77-79 T-bird for sale at one of the Carlisle swap meets for what seems a reasonable price. I've always liked that style. But I've also been more of a GM (Pontiac, specifically) or Mopar type of guy, so I wonder if I'd really like living with something like that, long-term. I've never owned a Ford product. In fact, between my uncle and Granddad on my Mom's side of the family, and my Dad, I was taught to hate them as a child! I've gotten over that, but I still wonder if I'd be happy with an F-word. :P
In 1962, the 327 and 409's went to an aluminum Powerglide that became standard in all of them in 1963. There weren't as tough as the cast iron ones. They would start slipping between first and second.
Of course, a Powerglide overhaul in those days was less than 200.00.
These were beautiful but pretty crappy cars. They handled like a Wash State Ferry!
I think they ruined the looks on the 1966's with the wrap around roof that eliminated the rear side windows.
They went WAY downhill after that!
They really weren't very good cars. They had lots of electrical problems, bad window switches and vacuum operated wipers and door locks; The 390 engines and Cruisematics were OK but everything else was shoddy.
Still, the 1965 TBirds turned heads...beautiful cars.
The Buick Rivieras of that are were FAR superior cars in every catagory but that could be said of the whole GM line when compared to the offerings from Ford at the time.
I agree on that wraparound roof thing. That was the model called the "Town Landau", right? Still, you could get a hardtop model that had the triangular quarter windows in back. I thought these still looked good, as did the convertible. There's just something about the grille I like on the '66, compared to the '64-65. I think most people prefer it the other way around, though!
Can you swap in a later THM350 or THM400 in place of a Slim Jim? I know you can't swap in the older 4-speed Hydramatic, at least not easily, because the floorpan is different. I always liked the '61 Pontiacs. I dunno if I'd call them a "dream car", but it's a car I wouldn't mind having some day. Would it be feasible to get a Catalina and swap in a 350/400 tranny if the Slim-Jim went bad? Or would I just be better off getting a Bonneville or Star Chief, which would have the 4-speed Hydramatic?
Of course, a Powerglide overhaul in those days was less than 200.00.
I remember my old mechanic used to say that back in the day they'd get $50 to rebuild a Mopar Powerflite tranny and $75 to rebuild a Torqueflite, but I wonder if those prices were what the mechanic got, and not what the customer paid? I remember he was saying they liked the Powerflite because they could rebuild 3 a day, but they could never finish two Torqueflites in a day.
I dunno about pushing that huge Lincoln around---gas hog, a HUGE bouncy, floaty thing, barely in control of itself...underbraked, under-suspended, under-tired, with enough body roll to captize in a storm.
I guess driving in a straight line at 55-60 on a freeway with the stereo on wouldn't be bad at all for $3,500. You could put a piece of masking tape over the gas gauge so you don't ruin your trip!
Talkin' about STRANGE---the '58 Lincoln comes to mind...(there's that '58 year again....). What a bizarre design...looks like it was built with a chainsaw....
So I guess that the Lincoln must've been considered pretty prestigious, or at least, conspicuous, at the time, to be featured in that movie. At first I was thinking it was interesting that they didn't use a Cadillac or Imperial, but then it hit me...there WAS a Cadillac at the beginning of the movie, when Cary Grant first gets kidnapped. I think it was a Fleetwood 75 factory limo.
In a twisted, vile sort of way, I kinda like the '59-60 Lincolns, but I don't like the way the '58 has the headlights in their own pods separated from a punched-in grille. I thought the '59-60, where the headlights were worked into the grille, looked much better, but then along came the '61 and made that whole previous generation look obsolete.
Cadillacs were SO MUCH better cars, there was no comparision.
Yesterday, I saw a 1966-1967 Lincoln convertable that was in great condition. Beautiful car but I can't think of anything more troublesome than one of those.
Iacocca deserves a lot of credit for taking a lackluster car, the Falcon and turning it into something exciting!
Hard to think about where Ford would have been in those days without him.
I always thought he could even make a great President. Too late now.
RE: Ford---I heard this story about the svoopy-doopy T-Bird (what was that, 1983). Seems like the design department in 1981 or so had come up with yet another clunky, boxy pile of nothing for 1983 and the Prez of Ford (who was that then?) said: "Is THIS the car you really want to build? Show me the car you really want to build".
And thus came the svoopy doopy T-Bird and, I gather, a modicum of sales success along with it.
re: DAGMARS -- I'm sure that went over a lot of people's heads :P
Looking back, 1980-82 really was a low point for the T-bird. They managed to move about 156,000 units for that recession-ridden year. That was enough to barely beat out the Monte Carlo (~148,000 units), but the Regal (214,000 units) and the Cutlass Supreme coupe (275,000+) simply blew it away. Also, by this time, the T-bird was undercutting those competing models in price. The GM personal luxury coupes started off in the $6500 range, while the T-bird started at a low $6432. The actual disparity was even greater, because GM's cars came with a V-6 standard, while the T-bird had a V-8. But I dunno if you can really put much premium on a 115 hp 4.2/255 CID V-8 over a 115 hp 3.8 (Chevy 229 or Buick 231) V-6. For '81-82 they made the tiny 88 hp 200 straigh six standard! It first showed up on the T-bird late in the 1980 model year as a credit option.
Those really were some bad times. I'm just getting this mental image of a 3-way drag race between a 1978 Monte Carlo with the 95 hp 3.3 V-6, an '81 T-bird with the 88 hp 3.3 straight six, and an '80 Cordoba with the 85 hp 3.7 slant six! :sick:
Oh yeah...on that '80-82 T-bird, sales were down to about 45,000 units in 1982, so they HAD to do something. I think the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo were pushing about 90,000 units apiece by then, and I know the Cougar XR-7, Cordoba, and Mirada were almost forgotten. About the only personal luxury coupes that still had any magic left in their names were the Regal (136K units for the coupe) and Cutlass Supreme (~166K units).
The aero 1983 Bird, in comparison, moved 121,000 units, and definitely saved the nameplate. A similar revelation happened at Mercury. The 1982 Cougar XR-7 moved ~17,000 units, while the 1983 redesign sold ~76,000.
I remember my dad liked to check out the local 'auto row' every few Sundays as he was always an impulse buyer, and I wold go with him. I developed a thing for the Renault Fuego, and I remember the Renault dealer gave me a pile of posters and promo material. I wish I still had it, for a laugh if anything.
Speaking of digital dashes, I recall some old man my parents knew had what I think was a new Caddy in the early 80s - some large plush car - and it had a digital speedo anyway. It seemed very impressive. I also remember a friend of the family had a K-car with a digital clock, which impressed me as neither of our family cars (would have been a Ciera and Horizon at the time I think) had this.
Pretty dreary times for cars. I do remember I was in love with the car owned by the people across the street from us - a white RX-7. I was also very interested in a kind of pukey light yellow W126 300SD owned by a doctor my mother knew. I remember this car smoking quite a bit at startup, and it couldn't have been more than a few years old.
And speaking of that Cordoba, I remember a friend of mine's mother had a white Mirada CMX with t-tops. They were always careful to take very good care of it, believing it was a special car. Maybe it survives today.
There was a high-output version of the Cordoba/Mirada in 1980 that had a 185 hp 360-4bbl. I've seen road tests of them that had them at 0-60 in 10 seconds flat. Sadly, that was about the most you could get out of a domestic that year, short of a Corvette, 350 Camaro, or Turbo Firebird/Trans Am.
I came close to buying a 1980 Cordoba a few years back. It was originally a slant six car, but had been upgraded to a 318-4bbl out of a '75 Dart that had been hopped up, and a Torqueflite 727 and 8.75" 3.23 rear end that came out of a 1970 smallblock Charger. Evidently, the '68-70 B-body rear was close enough in track and spring perch that it could be forced onto a Cordoba. Unfortunately, the thing also had no brakes, a trashy interior (but factory buckets with a floor shift), and was rusting out pretty badly underneath (but oddly, no so much in the sheetmetal...you had to get under it to see it).
In retrospect, probably a good thing I didn't buy it! I remember the guy had stuck some CMX badges on it off of a Mirada. These things really weren't very good cars, but I always thought they were good looking. I still wouldn't mind owning one someday. They show up occasionally at Carlisle. Sometimes some buffoon has a mint-condition one and wants $10K for it, but occasionally I'll see nice ones for around $2000-2500.
I think a 1980 model with a 360-4bbl and T-tops would be way cool.
I remember looking at used Cadillacs when I first graduated from college. I test drove a 1983 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham with the 4100 engine, a 1981 Cadillac Sedan DeVille with a diesel, and a 1984 Cadillac Sedan DeVille with a V-6! Mr. Slowski the Turtle would've been proud!
THE HT4100 ENGINE: A jigsaw puzzle of hoses and wires and a guaranteed college fund annuity for a mechanic's child.
The HT (High Technology) 4100 engine, a 4.1 litre (252 CID V-8) was the newest Digital Fuel-Injected engine Cadillac had produced. It was revolutionary for its day, because it combined a lightweight aluminum block with cast iron cylinder heads and a throttle-body fuel injection system. This system could be contolled and diagnosed through an onboard digital computer interfaced through the Climate Control module inside the car. The HT4100 was rushed into production to debut in the 1982 model year Cadillac and was produced until the advent of the 4.5 litre V-8 in 1988.
Previous to 1982, Cadillac's fuel injection systems had been electronic - good systems when they worked, but prone to vacuum leaks, and hard to diagnose because of the variable nature of electronic systems. The HT4100 was a product of the post-fuel crunch era and was intended to give excellent fuel economy in a lightweight V-8 package.
The HT4100 engine was destined to become one of Cadillac's most dismal failures. Numerous problems plagued the design, from porous block castings, which allowed oil and coolant to mix over time; to coolant leaks caused by warping of intake manifolds and block to head mountings caused by overheating or even normal operation of the engine. Weak crankshafts, camshafts and distributor drives could shatter and cause instant failure, or cause a slow death as they wore down and reduced the power output of the already anemic 120 hp engine to almost nothing. Failed head gaskets and intake manifold gaskets were common to even low-mileage cars.
The 1982-83 model years were the worst. The engine was not extensively tested before production, and problems began to appear after 50K-60K miles of ownership in many cases. By 1984, Cadillac had contracted with Mercury Marine, an engine company experienced in manufacture of aluminum-block engines, to work out some of the problems in the design.
This led to the 1984-87 engines being less prone to problems, but still troublesome nonetheless. A general recall of all HT4100 engines produced in 1985 was carried out, at which time stop-leak pellets were crushed and added to the radiators of all HT4100-equipped cars to seal block porosity and gasket leaks. It is important to note that while many HT4100-equipped cars ended up with engine replacements or in junkyards very early on, there are also many HT4100 engines still on the road with 170K-200K miles and counting. Longevity and reliability seen to be a hit-or-miss proposition with the drivetrain. Proper maintenance can serve to extend the engine as far as possible.
Repair and general maintenance of the HT4100 are also quite different compared to previous Cadillac products. Due to the aluminum construction and complex design, certain procedures and torque specifications must be followed religiously. Repairs that were simple on olded Cadillac engines are quite different than on the HT4100, and very little information is available outside factory shop manuals and supplements.
Do you have similar information on the 252 c.i. Buick V6, also known as the 4100, that went into some large body Olds and Buicks in '80 and '81 (I don't know all the years exactly), and, later, certain Cadillacs? It was a bored out and siamesed version of the Buick 3.8. Anyhow, the larger bore led to gasket failures, and maybe other problems. Do you know anything more about this engine?
In addition to the infamous V8 diesel, GM also introduced a V6 diesel in the early-mid '80s. Some FWD A bodies were equipped with this engine, but I don't know if it was available on larger GM cars. I remember talking to a Cutlass owner who was happy with his V6 diesel, and the car had 70,000 miles on it. From what I know, the V6 was better than the V8 diesel, but I don't know much about this engine. For example, was it also a converted gasser, or was it designed as a diesel from the get go?
Finally, do you happen to know whether the original 198 c.i. Buick V6, which was introduced in '62, I believe, was derived from the Nailhead V8? I believe it was, but I've read conflicting stories about the genesis of this engine.
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/pictureguides/blocks/blockguide.html
I had a 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic with a 4.3 litre V-6 which came to about 252 CID. It was commonly used in small trucks and I felt it was a decent economical engine. I managed to get 26 MPG which is pretty good for a big car like a Caprice.
I currently have a 1988 Buick Park Avenue with a 3.8 litre V-6 which delivers 165 hp and a very decent 19/29 MPG city/hwy.
Before I bought my Seville, I had a 1994 DeVille with the 4.9 litre V-8. It was only rated at 200hp, but I alway felt this car was -FAST->!!! The engine was so smooth that, if you didn't keep your eye on the speedo, you'd be doing 100 mph easy on the turnpike. It's amazing what a beautiful swan evolved from the grotesque duckling that was the 4100.
The Buick 4.1 came out late in the 1980 model year, but I forget now what cars it was offered on that year. The Electra/Park Ave had an Olds 307-4bbl standard that year, but would get the 252-4bbl (4.1) standard for 1981, and on Cadillacs it was a $165 credit option. It was also standard on the 1981 Toronado/Riviera. Other RWD Buicks and Oldsmobiles, like the LeSabre, Delta, Cutlass, and Century/Regal offered it as an upgrade to the 3.8 V-6.
Pontiac started offering it on their RWD mid- and full-sized cars either in 1980 or 1981. For 1982 the big Pontiacs were dropped, along with all Pontiac V-8's (265 and 301 V-8) and the Buick 4.1 V-6, I believe, was the biggest engine you could get in the Grand Prix/Bonneville-G, unless you got the Olds Diesel.
The Buick 4.1 had 125 hp and 210 ft-lb of torque. Same hp as the Caddy 4.1 V-8. And the Buick V-6 actually out-torqued the Caddy V-8 by 10 ft-lb! Eventually, the Caddy V-8 got bumped to 135 hp in the Brougham, but the Buick 4.1 V-6 stayed at 125 hp through its final year in 1984.
I read an old road test of a 1982 Bonneville with the 4.1, and they got 0-60 in 12.9 seconds which, considering the car was probably stuck with really loafy gearing, isn't that bad for that era. I read somewhere that a DeVille with the V-6 would do 0-60 in about 21 seconds, but I dunno if that's an exaggeration or not. While the Buick 4.1 stayed around through 1984, I think Cadillac stopped using it after 1982. It never was a popular option.
I wonder which engine was worse...the Buick 252 or the Caddy 249? Might be kinda fun to get one example of each engine and just abuse the heck out of them and see which one blows first! In retrospect, Cadillac probably would have been better off if they just took and Olds 307 and threw it under the hood of these cars. That's what they ended up doing in 1986 on the Brougham, anyway. I guess the idea of a Cadillac-exlusive engine with cylinder de-activation, and then an all-aluminum V-8, might have seemed alluring at the time, and given the cars a bit of exlusivity over an Electra or Ninety-Eight. But in the long run, it would've made for a much better car if they'd just stuck it out with the 307 in the first place.
I also thought it was a bit interesting that, once Cadillac moved onto the larger versions of the aluminum engine, like the 4.5 and 4.9, they never bothered trying to put one of them in the Brougham. Instead, they just stuck it out with the 307 until Olds quit building them after 1990, and then went to Chevy blocks. Of course, once they started offering the TBI 350 and then going LT-1, that wasn't a bad thing!