Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

15375385405425431278

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    "well the '55 Dodge had X horsepower and Y weight, so it would compete well against the '55 Chevy with...blah blah"..

    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.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited December 2012
    I think Uncle Tom (McCahill) did a lot for automotive journalism by providing a bundle of laughs. Since humor frequently employs exaggeration, you couldn't take his comments at face value. Notwithstanding that, he let you know where he stood on the cars he tested, in terms of best attributes and shortcomings. You didn't have to be a auto buff to enjoy his reviews.

    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    If it was the real big'un, that would be the 880 or Custom 880, if it was the top trim level. Pretty obscure car, although I do see 880's pretty regularly at the Mopar show in Carlisle. For some reason, it seems like beige is the most common color I see them wearing.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,095
    I guess it wasn't the real big boy, the kind that looked a couple years old by 1964. It was one of these medium ones, just looked big compared to the modern cars around it:

    image
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    Yeah, that'd be a Polara! A case of downsizing that happened about 15 years premature. Supposedly the shrunken '62 Dodges and Plymouths gave up very little interior room compared to a Chevy or Ford, but I think buyers really wanted their full sized cars to LOOK full-sized. Plus, the funky styling probably didn't help matters much.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Ain't that the truth! For instance, since we're talking "obscure" here---I can remember how incredibly DIFFERENT it was to be in a domestic car vs. a foreign one in the 1960s. To step from a Chevy to a Jaguar or an Alfa was like going into a different universe. There was actually culture shock behind the wheel.

    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!
  • jljacjljac Member Posts: 649
    I think Uncle Tom (McCahill) did a lot for automotive journalism by providing a bundle of laughs. Since humor frequently employs exaggeration, you couldn't take his comments at face value.

    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."
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    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.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited December 2012
    283 and 327 Chevys used to beat my '55 Studebaker all the time (racing in the mid 1960s). The engine simply ran out of air. I'd get a small jump due to very low gearing in the differential, but then I'd be toast by the time we were pulling 2nd gear. By the time the big blocks came out, I was totally out of my league.

    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    Heck, with the right gearing, often with a bigger engine you can just floor it and it'll stay in first gear up to 55-60 mph. My '67 Catalina will do that, and usually chirps the tires on the 1-2 shift. Back in the day, it would sometimes even chirp on the 2-3 shift, but it won't do it anymore. I think part of it may be that I have bigger, heavier wheels and tires on it now. When I bought it, it had 215/75/R14 tires, and a few years back I put some 15x7 Pontiac Rally 2 wheels on it, with 225/70/R15 tires. I don't remember how wide the old 14" rims were. They still seemed kinda wide, but I don't think they were 7".

    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!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,095
    edited December 2012
    I used to really dislike the funky midrange cars like the Polara, but I don't mind the design so much now. It was original, if anything. The 1962 versions are the weirdest, but also the coolest, for what they are.

    To me, this looks very 1960-61 which for a 1964 domestic wasn't a good thing:

    image
  • omarmanomarman Member Posts: 2,702
    That story reminds me of something posted regarding the issue of what makes a SBC 327/250 hp a unique "Corvette engine" compared to a 327/250 hp V8 in a Biscayne. I missed the response to that but I think the answer lies in both the parts and part numbers.

    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?
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I liked the 64 Plymouth and Dodge coupe C pillar treatment. They moved it over to the intermediates in 65. Very clean looking to me.
  • jljacjljac Member Posts: 649
    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?

    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.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,254
    edited December 2012
    Race on Sunday, sell on Monday! or in the case of Lemans, Race on Saturday starting @ 3pm through Sunday.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • jljacjljac Member Posts: 649
    edited December 2012
    283 and 327 Chevys used to beat my '55 Studebaker all the time (racing in the mid 1960s).

    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.
    image
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited December 2012
    An R-1 Avanti is not very fast either, but displacement gives you more torque, and that counts in drag racing.

    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.
  • jljacjljac Member Posts: 649
    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 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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    small block Chevy is still being made by Mercury Marine!

    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.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...beautiful light blue and white 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 two-door hardtop on Welsh Road in Montgomery County, PA.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Volvo Penta Marine still uses the SB to as does PCM and Ilmor marine.

    We bought a new boat last year and it's powered by a mercruiser 350mag which is a chevy 300hp 350 vortec.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Easily the longest-surviving engine in history, in one form or another. Probably along with the Ford flathead V8 and the "Hemi", (which is actually many different engines) the most famous automobile engine in American culture.

    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:
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    I've heard that a lot of Chrysler 392 Hemis were used to power air raid sirens, and the sirens at fire stations and such.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    You can buy various types of Mopar crate engines--340 strokers, etc, but they ain't cheap! :cry:
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,852
    Easily the longest-surviving engine in history, in one form or another

    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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    another long running engine, the Ford 'small block" Windsor---I think it had about a 40 years run, not bad. These were also used in marine applications, but I don't think anymore, since the mid 1990s it looks like from what I've read.

    The Windsor engine was introduced in 1962.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited December 2012
    As far as I know the Ford Windsor is done. I know Ford hasn't supplied any engines to the marine industry since about '96 or so. PCM used the 351and Volvo Penta used to use 302 and 351. But since the '96 IIRC all inboard and inboard/outboard gas marine drivetrains are GM. Currently they are 3.0 4cyl (which I haven't a clue what it's based on but is a OHV inline 4), 4.3 v6, 5.0, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2 (stroked 350), and possibly still the 8.1 BB. But it looks like the big block is about done. I Know volvo is done with the BB. I think Mercury Racing still uses the BB, but I'm not sure as it's a 8.2l 502. Which at minimum, I'm sure is based on a GM architecture.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    "Can you get a crate version of the original Hemi, or only the 426?"

    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?
  • jljacjljac Member Posts: 649
    The Packard motor of 55-56 was highly flawed, with poor lubrication to the rocker arms.

    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.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    How did it survive the tin worm???
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited December 2012
    Yes, you're right, the ultimate problem was finally found to be the oil pump--but it manifested itself through noisy lifters and spun bearings--I think the pump allowed the oil to cavitate---not good! These were just a few of the many other problems with the 55-56 Packards, and coupled to being tied to the walking corpse of Studebaker at that time, this deadly combination meant one of them had to go. Given how few cars Packard sold, it would have been mighty hard to turn the company around.

    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.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,254
    Over on 'Mystery Car Pics' someone is looking to ID some 50's MOPAR's. Interested?
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    I just took a stab...hopefully it helps out some. Shame that '53 DeSoto Adventurer concept never made it to production. That was a nice looking car. And, despite the close-coupled look, was supposedly a fully functional 4-seater. That other concept, the convertible that I believe is a 1955 Chrysler Falcon, looks sorta like George Barris's inspiration for "The Car"! Way cool in my book, but I doubt if too many would have bought it. But then, you never know...good taste didn't always prevail in the 50's.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,254
    The 392 is back in some of the SRT models.
    A kid around the corner has one in his new Challenger.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    The 392 is back in some of the SRT models.
    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..
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Racing wasn't their image in 1957, at least not street racing. Chryslers were still viewed as cars for mature adults---the Chrysler was the Lincoln or Cadillac, the Desoto was the Buick and the Dodge the Olds and Chevy perhaps---or something like that. Chrysler's big brag was 'engineering'.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,254
    The 3800 is just an SBC with 2 cylinders cut off, so I feel like that's a duplicate entry.
    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.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    For DeSoto at least, 1957, to take a premature page from Oldsmobile, was "not your Father's DeSoto". And, like Oldsmobile, it would prove to be their downfall. A lot of new buyers were lured in that year, but quality was so bad that it burned them enough that it would be ages before they'd pick another Chrysler product. And at the same time, it burned the DeSoto faithful, who were accustomed to sturdy, reliable cars.

    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:
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    edited December 2012
    The 3800/Buick V6 was not derived from the SBC, instead from a cast iron version of the aluminum Buick V8:

    "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.""
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    bragging rights---big car, big power. I suspect the 1 HP per cubic inch was incidental, in the sense that it was a secondary goal to that of getting a very high HP rating in general. The big slogan in '57 was "The Mighty Chrysler" and of course "The Forward Look".

    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    Holy Chrysler, I bought a chick car!! :surprise:

    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!
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,852
    Wasn't there a Dodge or maybe DeSoto called "LeFemme" or something along those lines?

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,653
    Yeah, there was a La Femme trim package that was offered on the 1955 and 1956 Dodge. I think they only offered it on the Custom Royal Lancer hardtop coupe, but not sure. Wikipedia says it was a $143 option, wasn't widely promoted, and they estimate about 2500 were built over the two year period.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,852
    I seem to remember seeing one pop up on a Mecum TV show or something like that. Neat idea, probably wouldn't fly today. I guess not so much back then either with only 2500 over two years.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    What about the "Cleveland" engine which I always heard was superior to the Windsor?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited December 2012
    The moral of the LaFemme fiasco is that you can sell a man's car to a woman, but not so much the other way around. That's assuming that cars are associated with gender, which is probably not really the case. The reason that women buy cars associated with masculinity in significant numbers may just be that women appreciate the performance attributes of these cars, just as men do. Maybe the reason that men buy more high performance models than women is more related to pay inequality than testosterone.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Didn't see any rust on this example. Either it was extremely well cared for in this climate or this car came from somewhere other than the snowbelt.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    image

    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!

    image
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    "What about the "Cleveland" engine which I always heard was superior to the Windsor? "

    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:
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,852
    Makes you wonder why Ford had both series of small block engines at the same time

    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

Sign In or Register to comment.