Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Yeah, that doesn't always work, because there are so many factors, such as the transmission, engine displacement, gearing, at what rpm the engine hits peak hp and peak torque, how broad those power bands are, how much of that power actually makes it to the drive wheels, etc.
Even in modern times, you can't go by hp and weight alone. I remember Edmund's doing a test of a 2000 Intrepid ES with 225 hp, a 2000 Impala LS with 200 hp, and 5-6 other mainstream cars. The Intrepid and Impala were pretty close in weight. You'd think the Intrepid would have a definite advantage in acceleration, but IIRC, the Impala did 0-60 in 8.2 seconds, while the Intrepid was something like 8.4. Not a huge difference, to be sure, but the Intrepid obviously didn't make good use of that extra 25 hp.
I think the main factor was that the Impala had a 3.8, while the Intrepid had a 3.2. The Impala's peak torque and hp came on at a lower rpm than the Intrepid, and while I don't remember the torque specs, I'm sure the Impala had more.
Often, those automotive history books get things wrong, as well. For instance, Consumer Guide has mentioned in several books that a 1958 DeSoto Fireflite with the "TurboFlash" 305 hp 361-4bbl would do 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds. They also mention that a '57 Dodge with the 245 hp 325-2bbl would still be good for about 9.5 seconds.
However, Consumer Reports tested a 1957 Dodge; Royal model I think, with the 245 hp engine. IIRC, 0-60 came up in a leisurely 13 seconds. I guess the transmission could make a difference here. The Consumer Reports car had a 2-speed Powerflite. A 3-speed Torqueflite would've given it some extra boost, but I dunno if it would've let the car hit 60 mph 3.5 seconds quicker!
I also found an old road test of a 1957 DeSoto Firedome, with the 270 hp 341-2bbl Hemi (or "Double Rocker" as I think they called them back in the day), and it was good for 0-60 in about 9.7 or 9.8 seconds. Very good for the time, but I don't think an extra 20 cubes, two barrels and 35 hp are going to get it to 60 mph two seconds quicker.
Of course, memory is not infallible! I'm sometimes amazed at things that I *swear* were true and then I look it up and nope, I was wrong.
I think sometimes it's not that your memory was wrong, but it's just that times have changed and so has your life experience. For instance, I used to like driving my Granddad's '85 Silverado when I was a teenager because it felt fast, with its 165 hp 305 V-8. Compared to my 229 Malibu and most of my friends' cars, it WAS fast. But today, whenever I drive that thing, good lord does it feel slow! The reality is that it's no slower now than it was when I first drove it in 1986. But, I've simply gotten used to faster and faster cars over the years.
Some of today's automotive journalists deliver a creative writing style, but none provide the whit that McCahill did. Bob Lutz reminded me of McCahill when he once said that certain car designs looked liked angry appliances. That's the type of comment that could have come from McCahill's typewriter.
For 1963-64, the Polara's wheelbase was stretched from 116" to 119", although the Plymouths were forced to ride out the 116" until "proper" full-sized cars appeared for 1965. It's not going to win any beauty contests, but I think that '64 at least has a strong, muscular look to it.
Nowadays no such thing. It's even hard for *any* car to be "obscure" these days. We have so much information that very few machines feel unfamiliar.
And speaking further about "obscure"---when I see some of the cars you guys post, I can recall WHY they are considered obscure today---in other words, sometimes I remember why nobody bought them in the first place, or why they failed to remain in the popular imagination.
In other words, the cars we consider "obscure" today, were often obscure when they first came out.
Part of obscurity came from a lack of production, of course (fewer cars made, less often seen) but it also comes from being excluded from mass culture.
For instance, the cars that went road racing in the 60s became far more popular than the products made by companies that didn't, or couldn't afford, to do Trans Am or Lemans or Rallying.
Out of sight, out of mind!
The value of reading articles that were written at the time the cars were new is that those vehicles were compared to the others in existence at the same time which were running on the same grades of gasoline. For example, the first 1951 Studebaker V-8 with 332 cu. inches which was only available with a 2 barrel carb and single exhaust does not compare well to the 1955 Stude V-8 with 259 cu. in. a 4 barrel carb and dual exhausts.
As another example, the 1951 Studebaker L head 6 cylinder motor was only rated at 75 hp but the 1959 L-head motor with exactly the same displacement was rated at 90 hp (same as the 1960 Ford Falcon). That is a 20 % power increase from the same engine.
This may not seem like a lot, but if you increase a 300 hp motor by 20% the result is 60 additional hp which is a big difference. For example, the VW motor only delieverd 40 h.p. after it was increased from 33 hp in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle.
Higher octane gasoline during the 1950s (including “regular” grades) had a lot to do with increased performance. It should also be noted that automobile writers of the time such as Tom McCahill and Brock Yates had a great influence on public opinion because there were fewer public sources of information. Their opinions carried great weight and are like time capsules so you can compare "apples to apples" instead of "apples to oranges" or "apples to apples of the future."
Was anything actually changed on the Studebaker 6-cyl during that timeframe, or did Stude (along with other manufacturers no doubt) simply get loose and sloppy with their hp figures, and inflate them in later years?
I always theorized that once manufacturers started listing hp in multiples of 5 (150, 155, 160, etc) rather than more seemingly random numbers, such as (148, 154, 161, etc), that by that point, most manufacturers were rounding off at least. And probably rounding up, in the process.
A blower and better heads would definitely have made a world of difference. But at the time, such things were very expensive, and blowers were not very durable if you ran 'em hard.
In stock form, the Chevy 283 was a bit of a dog in later years. It was usually good for about 195 hp or so, but the cars were just getting too big and heavy. 0-60 in something like a 1965 Impala was probably down to 13-14 seconds, if not worse. CR tested a '67 with the 307, and only got 14.5. Of course, those are stock engines, and tested by fairly conservative CR. I'm sure many of those engines didn't stay stock for long!
To me, this looks very 1960-61 which for a 1964 domestic wasn't a good thing:
There were some unique engine blocks, heads, etc available exclusively for Corvettes plus there were specific stampings and codes on all engines used for Corvette production. Regardless of hp ratings a 327 from another Chevy model really couldn't pass for a numbers matching classic Corvette engine could it? I mean not unless there was some kind of restamping trickery going on.
Isn't that where all this numbers matching biz began?
Studebaker actually did the opposite of what you said. I checked the specifications and although the Studebaker 6 was originally rated at 75 hp, by 1951 it was up to 85 hp. By 1955 the displacement was increased from 169.6 cu.in. to 185.6 cu.in with 101 hp and remained that way until 1959 when Studebaker wanted the best economy for the Lark, so it reduced the displacement back to 169.6 cu.in. (same bore & stroke as 1946-1954) and it then had 90 hp. The difference was in the engine compression ratio and gasoline, although I think it had a different camshaft.
Engine compession makes a big difference in peformance. For example, Packard sold its V-8 to AMC to put in the the 1955-56 Hudson, but they sold it with thicker head gaskets so it did not have as much horsepower. This made the people at AMC upset. I do not recall what the exact difference (I think it was 10 hp) was but if anyone compares the 1955-56 Hudson to the same size Packard engine, there is a difference although the engines are the same.
This is the type of unfair comparison I spoke of earlier. Of course a 283 Chevrolet engine that was built between 1957 to 1967 or a 327 Chevy that was built between 1962-69 can beat a 1955 Studebaker V-8 with only 259 cu.in. I have owned both a 1955 Studebaker and a 1963 R-1 Avanti. I never considered the 1955 to be a fast because I owned the Avanti first and found that the 1955 Commander was a slug compared to the Avanti.
The 1955 is not considered to be a great performer when compared to later Studebakers which had moved up to 289 ci. in. by 1957 when the 283 Chevy motor first appeared. The R-series Larks and Avantis are considered to be the performers. Those are the cars that show up at the annual Muscle Car Drags in the video clips that Uplanderguy posted earlier at the Studebaker forum. All Hawk-type bodies are considered low and slow, as they were when Andy Granatelli was setting speed records.
At the same time, I consider a stock 1955 Chevy to be a slug compared to a stock 1963 R-1 Avanti The Avanti has a 60 hp advantage on the ‘55 power pack Chevy and a weight advantage as well. I know this because I raced in the NHRA K-stock stick class at Island Drag Raceway at Hacketstown New Jersey in the mid 70's when I was stationed at Ft. Dix and was happy to find that stock 1955 Chevys were present and hoped that nothing fast would show up in my class.
My GT Hawk was kind of a slug, too, but once it got rolling, it was pretty okay. ('63). It was an automatic, and a heavy car. I wouldn't dare race a 327 but I could pick off a 283 with turboglide (I know, not fair).
The very early Chevy motors could really rev and on a short track, that really mattered in the 50s--most V8s back then then were oversquare weren't they?---and not great breathers.
is that you in the picture? Cool! :shades:
I actually went so far as to buy a used supercharger but when I learned what was involved in rebuilding it, I blanched. This was pretty much a "back to the factory" proposition then, and it cost something like $1000 in 1968 dollars---it seemed like a fortune at the time. My idea was to use the blower in a Lark convertible--white with red interior. I had a thing for those stubby little cars.
Now of course a Mini Cooper water pump would probably cost close to $1000.
I looked up the specs and the situation was worse than I said. The 1955 Packard V-8 of 320 cu.in. was rated at 225 hp but the same engine sold to AMC was only rated at 208 hp.
In 1956 the Packard V-8 of 352 cu.in (also used in the Golden Hawk) was rated at 275 hp. but the same engine sold to AMC for the Hudson was only rated at 220 hp. That must have caused some hard feelings at AMC and probably did not help the proposed merger of the two companies.
I can find Internet references to the 1955-56 Hudson engine being a "detuned" Packard motor but no reference to the reason for that being the use of thicker head gaskets, although I am sure that was the reason. Higher compression and higher octane gas make a big difference in performance.
I had my Avanti motor rebuilt with dish pistons instead of the flat top R-1 pistons because I wanted the option of supercharging it in the future and I did notice reduced power.
The Stude V-8 designed in 1949-50 was heavy because it was designed to handle compession ratios of 12 to 1 or more. It took until 1964 and the R-4 get to get there, but it did the job. Only the Oldsmobile Rocket V-8 of 1949 had a longer production life, which also lasted until 1964.
You can put the cylinder heads from a 1990 Chevy truck vortec engine right on a '55 Chevy motor!
so you had the 265, 283, 327, 302, 350 and 400. After that the block did change with the LT1
The Packard motor of 55-56 was highly flawed, with poor lubrication to the rocker arms.
We bought a new boat last year and it's powered by a mercruiser 350mag which is a chevy 300hp 350 vortec.
You'll also find that block in some rather obscure exotics, the "hybrids" of the 50s and 60s that were built in Europe mostly.
I wonder if the Russians ever copied it? :confuse:
Can you get a crate version of the original Hemi, or only the 426? For all the lure and mystique, the 426 Hemi was good mainly as a racecar engine, and wasn't all that well-suited to everyday street use, whereas the old Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler Hemis were designed mainly as street engines, and had high-performance setups developed later on.
I guess with modern technology though, a 426 could be made a lot more "streetable" than it was back in the day.
Is the Ford Windsor block still being manufactured? It's been around a long time too. I know Ford stopped putting them in anything past 2001.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
The Windsor engine was introduced in 1962.
While I guess you could get replacement parts for most of them, if by 'crate engine' you mean something fully assembled, ready to go, I'd be surprised. 99.9% of the time when somebody wants a 'hemi', they want THE hemi, the 426 (or bigger, lots of larger versions available).
And the rough running was more a result of the wild cams used for max hp, wasn't it? I would think you could put in a mild cam, but then what's the point?
I thought that the 1954 Ford V-8 "Y-Block" had the problems getting oil to the rocker arms while Packard covered broken oil pump shafts. I should have specified that the first ohv V-8s prior to 1956 had problems increasing their displacement and that includes the first Chevrolet small block. It is possible to bolt a 1964 V-8 cylinder head for an R-3 Avanti on a 224 cu.in V-8 of early 1955 too but there are many differences between the two engines.
Packard had hard luck all around. Had the 352 worked out, and had not Chevrolet introduced the small block at the same time, who knows--Packard might have gotten a lot better publicity for their new engine.
But there comes a time in an automaker's lifespan when even the best publicity isn't going to save it---especially when the Big Three is gunning for you. They'll just undersell you until you croak.
A kid around the corner has one in his new Challenger.
A kid around the corner has one in his new Challenger.
And, in a similar vein, the more common 5.7 "Hemi" (technically, they're all "pentroofs") is a 345 CID, same as the 1957 DeSoto Adventurer. Which, incidentally, was the first domestic passenger car to offer 1 hp per cubic inch standard, and in a "streetable" car. Chrysler actually broke that barrier in 1956 with the optional 355 hp 354 Hemi in the 1956 300B, and Chevy hit it in 1957 with the 283 hp 283 CID fuelie. However, the Chevy engine, the 355 hp version of the Chrysler 354, and the 390 hp version of their 392, were all optional engines, and came with a little disclaimer that said they were intended for the dragstrip only, and NOT intended for everyday street use.
Curiously, DeSoto never chose to capitalize on the whole 1 hp per cubic inch thing..
I'm sure there are better picks than Ford's Mod motor, but they are pretty legendary for longevity in Livery/Police usage and can make great power Ford GT/Mustang GT 500.
And, for the 1 hp per cubic inch Adventurer, it really begs the question. If they weren't going to advertise it, then why the hell build it?! :confuse:
"The first engine in this family was introduced in 1961 for the 1962 model year Buick Special with Buick's 198 cu in (3.2 L) engine, the first V6 in an American car. Because it was derived from Buick's 215 cu in (3.5 L) aluminum V8, it has a 90° bank between cylinders and an uneven firing pattern due to the crankshaft having only three crank pins set at 120° apart, with opposing cylinders (1-2, 3-4 and 5-6) sharing a crank pin in, as do many V8 engines. The uneven firing pattern was often perceived as roughness, leading a former American Motors executive to crow "It was rougher than a cob.""
the 300C was billed as "America's Greatest Performing Car!"
But when it came down to technical stats and burning rubber, Chrysler Corp. didn't seem to emphasis that.
As for power and bragging rights, DeSoto actually did stress that in their ads. Oddly though, they chose to showcase a Fireflite 4-door sedan.
And notice the ad mentions the cheap Firesweep, the mid-range Firedome, and the top line Fireflite. Yet, it says absolutely nothing about their flagship, the Adventurer! It's almost as if DeSoto was ashamed of it!
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
I dunno, but Marge loves her "F" Series Canyonero!
There was an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer accidentally buys an "F Series" Canyonero, which is the ladies' version of the SUV. He refuses to use it and gives it to Marge. Marge is at first, scared to drive it, but she quickly becomes full of road rage and is sent to traffic school by Chief Wiggum.
I doubt you'll see many macho guys in one of these either!
Yep, the 351 Cleveland (called the "335 series" internally by Ford) had bigger ports than the 351 Windsor (among other things), here's some info from wiki (note that 2V and 4V refer to 2 and 4 bbl carbs, not number of valves):
"The 335 series, although sharing the same bore spacing and cylinder head bolt pattern, was very different internally from the somewhat similar-looking Windsor series. The 335 Cleveland used smaller 14mm spark plugs in one of two different cylinder heads, both with 2 valves per cylinder. The '4V' heads had larger ports and valves than the '2V'. Both had the valves canted to the sides in a "poly-angle". The '2V' head had an open, almost hemispherical-shaped combustion chamber while the '4V' sported a quench-type combustion chamber. The Cleveland has a square-shaped rocker cover while the Windsor has a more rounded cover. All 335 covers are secured with 8 bolts; the Windsor uses 6 bolts.
The radiator hose locations differ between the Windsor and Cleveland engines; the Windsor routed coolant through the intake manifold, with the hose protruding horizontally, while the Cleveland had a dry manifold with the radiator hose connecting vertically to the cylinder block above the cam timing chain cover.
The 335 uses large main-bearing caps, allowing 4-bolt attachment on some engines. The oiling sequence does not route the oil supply to the main bearings first, and some critics fault this. However, for all but the highest level of performance applications, it has not proven any less reliable than the Windsor line."
Makes you wonder why Ford had both series of small block engines at the same time... :confuse:
No worse than GM....
According to Wiki the Cleveland was supposed to take the place of the larger Windsors. It just never happened and the Windsor continued on.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve