1940s/1950s cars vs. 1960s cars

[plain old dave]

DAGMAR!

But, to the topic at hand. The Beautiful Brute was designed with a very specific clientele, young, traveling executives. Think Don Draper on the road. Inflation adjusted, a '55 C-300 cost $36,000 when a Corvette would only set you back $24,000. But the businessmen that needed the room a 300 had wouldn't buy a Corvette. See, the 300 was designed for young executives in driving-intensive professions that more or less lived out of their car for weeks at a time; salesmen, project managers, that sort. The same people that a generation before would have drove Buick Specials or Centuries, which in 1955 would have cost in the mid to high 20s. They needed a car that could gobble up huge chunks of US roads like our 27, 11 or Bloody 25 here in Tennessee or US 29 in Virginia, what Mechanics Illustrated's Tom McCahill called "high speed cruise"; 70+ on a turnpike with rolling hills and sweeping curves all day long. They might have had an appointment one day in Lenoir City or Knoxville and have to be in Lexington, Kentucky the next day. And the faster, better handling car he had, the faster our 1955 Don Draper could get to the Motor Lodge and get a good night's sleep for the next day's appointment.

 

[Stanley Doble]

You make a good point about the Chrysler products. They made a strong effort to improve reliability and longevity in the sixties and backed it up with the first "5 year 50000 mile warranty".

But don't sell the 51 New Yorker short. I had one, with the Hemi V8 and 4 speed Fluid Torque Drive transmission. The combination of torquey 2 barrel hemi head V8, low gear in the 4 speed, plus torque multiplication of the torque converter meant it would really take off from a standing start. The 180HP 1951 New Yorker would out drag the 235HP 1955 New Yorker with the same size engine but 2 speed Powerflite.

And don't confuse the early fifties Chrysler products with the mid fifties GM products. The bumper off my New Yorker resembled a heavy duty guard rail and it took 2 strong men to lift it into place. The bumper off a 59 Chev was made of tinsel and could easily be carried by a ruptured 12 year old.

1957 - 58 - 59 represents a low point for Chrysler quality especially when it comes to rust out. Even then, they were better than anything GM had to offer. There is a video on Youtube where Tom McCahill stress tests the comparable Chrysler, Ford and GM models. Running hard over bad roads, Buick and Lincoln lost their suspension and a Cadillac practically folded in half, its body so bent up the door and trunk flew open . These are brand new cars with a few hundred miles at the most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrKAVfS3Ui0

 

[LizzieMaine]

See, the 300 was designed for young executives in driving-intensive professions that more or less lived out of their car for weeks at a time; salesmen, project managers, that sort.

Then I guess such cars did have one advantage -- they carried their drivers as far as possible away from here. Don Draper = yuck.

 

[tonyb]

A more powerful car (relative to its weight) has the advantage of being more comfortable in higher speed driving situations and on mountain pass roads and such. An engine that isn't working so hard to keep up makes less noise and generally makes for a more pleasant drive.

Back in the 1970s I owned VW microbuses, a '66 and a '62 (I think). Those cars were powerful enough for puttering about town. But going over a mountain pass? No thanks. I'd drive the shoulder so that I wouldn't slow the semis hauling oversized loads.

In the late spring of 1974 a friend and I drove the older VW (a panel job with side doors on both sides, the former property of the Boeing Airplane Co.) from Seattle to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho to procure a van load of Coors beer. Coors wasn't sold in the state of Washington then, so that alone made in desirable in some peoples' eyes. Turns out that a VW bus (I can't remember now if that particular example had the 36- or the 40-horsepower engine) stuffed to the ceiling with cases of beer would rather not be put to such a use.

 

[Fading Fast]

Then I guess such cars did have one advantage -- they carried their drivers as far as possible away from here. Don Draper = yuck.

Don was not executive bourgeois despite all appearances. He was a horribly broken man who came out of a brutal childhood and reached for the bourgeois world as an island sanctuary but was way too smart, too beaten and too adventurous to find peace in the plastic world of early sixties conformity. Did he represent it on the surface, yes; was that him; no. What was he - a brilliant and twisted man always looking for the inner peace he couldn't find. If anything, Mad Men was an arrant condemnation of 1960's conformity via meta-Don Draper. (You taught me "meta" so you can't complain. )

 

[LizzieMaine]

Excellent, you've scored well on the exam. I was reacting more to the "Don Draper" archetype, as used by Dave, than to the actual character himself, who is doubtless more nuanced than the popular image he depicts -- the whole idea of the smiling, glassy-eyed jaunty Fifties Salesman figure causes a rather visceral reaction on my part. I don't like him, and I especially don't like the values and the culture that he represents.

That said, though, I think the absolute best critique of that archetype came along in the late 1990s, and was absolutely unavoidable ten to fifteen years ago.

In the figure of "Smilin' Bob" the Enzyte Natural Male Enhancement Man", the Boys finally caught up with Don Draper and discovered the concept of "meta" for themselves -- using a character intended to specifically evoke an era absolutely awash in the use of sexually-fraught Freudian imagery in the design and promotion of consumer goods to promote a specific consumer product which promised to do, in actual fact, what those goods of the fifties were supposed to represent only subconsciously. And yet -- topping it all -- that product was revealed as a fraud.

The whole history of postwar American marketing, all in a nutshell. "Meta" indeed.

 

[MikeKardec]

The thing about design that gets me is the need to make everything look "aggressive." Yes indeed, Mr. Cubicle J. Keyboarder, all 140 baldheaded pounds of him, needs a car that makes him feel like Atilla the Hun while driving to the Pick-n-Save. It says something very unfortunate about the postwar American psyche that "aggressiveness" is a vital design selling point.

Consider -- 1937 Plymouth. Not aggressive, rather friendly-looking.

1948 Chevrolet. Not aggressive, but not so friendly.

1955 Ford. Not friendly, but not ferocious.

1959 Buick. "DIE, MILK FACE!"

1967 Plymouth. "I don't like you and I don't trust you, but we have to co-exist. Whatever."

1975 Chrysler. Passive aggressive display of bourgeois credit-extended wealth.

1987 Chevrolet. "Just leave me alone, all right? Can you for once just shut up and leave me alone."

1996 Ford. "Nyuhh huh huh. You're a butt-wipe."

2006 Dodge. "I hate you. I hate you. I hate you."

2014 Ford. "DIE MILK FACE! Yes honey, I remembered to get the kale. DIE MILK FACE!"

Hysterical! I had a Mini Cooper Paceman for a very short time and it looked SO unhappy. It wasn't big enough to be threatening but it sure was angry. In 4,000 miles it had a seizure trashed it's electrics and got returned to an understanding BMW dealer who was happy to give me a massive trade in on a new 3 series. The 3 doesn't look that much happier but if I pretend that the BMW "double kidney" grill is actually buck teeth it begins to resemble a sleek metal rodent ... possibly a badger if it only had racing stripes.

 

[MikeKardec]

Wouldn't have done any of us in Maine any good -- our roads were all two-lane, and speeds over 45 mph were prima facie evidence of reckless driving until I-95 opened. I don't much care for high-speed driving -- I'm perfectly happy to poke along at 35 or 40mph. Usually driving to work I don't go over 30.

I also prefer a higher-profile 30s-40s style car because of the roads here -- the frost heaves and potholes are hell on a low-slung car. I had a friend years ago who owned a 1962 Sunbeam Alpine. He took a hill in it, hit a frost heave, and tore off the oil pan. Some fun.

I also make it a point never to drive a car that has bigger breasts than I do.

Okay, you are on a roll.

Among car designers it seems completely forgotten that people will have to use them on real roads. Meaning washboards, pot holes, frost heaves. Those idiotic low profile tires every one is now using handle amazingly on a perfectly maintained racetrack but they are junk on real streets. I get it that they can put on massive brakes with big wheels and that is good but some clearance, wheel travel and sidewall is called for more often than not ... and those things deliver actual performance on bad roads. If you don't have consistent traction the car's handling is useless.

 

[plain old dave]

I mentioned panache.

While the 300-G had a 150mph speedometer, it was the same concept. Golden age super-cool.

View attachment 36587

The 300-C "Business Office."

Panache. Putting the key in the dash instead of the column. THAT starter noise. Pushing a button to shift into Drive. And a 55 year old car fully capable of doubling the posted speed limit, or comfortably cruising at 80+ all day long, with plenty of power to spare. So much that road tests of the day regularly mentioned passing without downshifting. Just mash the gas and you'll be around whoever you're trying to pass long before you NEED to downshift. And you can keep going well into the night, as Chrysler led the industry with alternators in 1960. The torsion bar front suspension (a 1957 innovation) made Chryslers the best handling domestics for years, too. A fast car's one thing, but one's that got power after 8-10 hours on the road is another thing entirely. And that's a "skill set" no domestic car (the Buick Century possibly excepted) had before the Chrysler 300 Letter Series.

 

[MikeKardec]

A more powerful car (relative to its weight) has the advantage of being more comfortable in higher speed driving situations and on mountain pass roads and such. An engine that isn't working so hard to keep up makes less noise and generally makes for a more pleasant drive.

Back in the 1970s I owned VW microbuses, a '66 and a '62 (I think). Those cars were powerful enough for puttering about town. But going over a mountain pass? No thanks. I'd drive the shoulder so that I wouldn't slow the semis hauling oversized loads.

In the late spring of 1974 a friend and I drove the older VW (a panel job with side doors on both sides, the former property of the Boeing Airplane Co.) from Seattle to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho to procure a van load of Coors beer. Coors wasn't sold in the state of Washington then, so that alone made in desirable in some peoples' eyes. Turns out that a VW bus (I can't remember now if that particular example had the 36- or the 40-horsepower engine) stuffed to the ceiling with cases of beer would rather not be put to such a use.

If I've got this right once you're over 6,000 feet your air pressure (and thus power) is down about 30%. A 40 hp engine doesn't have much left once it gives up 30%!

 

[tonyb]

Well, Snoqualmie Pass on Interstate 90 is about half that elevation, but your point is well taken. VW microbuses, the "classic" ones, are particularly ill-suited to Interstate highways and mountain passes. They just weren't made for the superslab.

 

[tonyb]

...

While the 300-G had a 150mph speedometer, it was the same concept. Golden age super-cool.

...

The 300-C "Business Office."

Panache. Putting the key in the dash instead of the column. THAT starter noise. Pushing a button to shift into Drive. And a 55 year old car fully capable of doubling the posted speed limit, or comfortably cruising at 80+ all day long, with plenty of power to spare. Or well into the night, as Chrysler led the industry with alternators in 1960. The torsion bar front suspension (a 1957 innovation) made Chryslers the best handling domestics for years, too. A fast car's one thing, but one's that got power after 8-10 hours on the road is another thing entirely. And that's a "skill set" no domestic car (the Buick Century possibly excepted) had before the Chrysler 300 Letter Series.

You appear to be partial to Mopars.

I'm reminded of the old Car Talk routine, wherein Tom Magliozzi posed the query of the first Biblical mention of the automobile, and, part 2, what type of car God drives.

It's in Genesis, and God drives a Plymouth ...

"In his Fury, God drove them from the Garden of Eden."

 

[LizzieMaine]

While the 300-G had a 150mph speedometer, it was the same concept. Golden age super-cool.

See, all I can think of there is what an absolute PIA it must be when all those little bulbs start burning out.

 

[plain old dave]

No light bulbs involved. Google "electroluminescent dashboard ".

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[LizzieMaine]

First result I got was this --

Essentially, there are no light bulbs in the dash of a 1962 Imperial. There is a power converter that converts the 12v. DC power to high-voltage AC current. This current (the white wires under the dash) causes the phosphorous coated parts of the panel to glow. There are long, thin rods inside your instrument cluster that glow and very, very thin wires that attach to the gauge needles. Typically, the wires become brittle and break. (Except for the ammeter, which gets its power through the gauge stem) This is a specialized lighting system that was developed by Chrysler and Sylvania. It has it's quirks. So, I would not recommend taking your dash cluster to the local electronics shop, they are likely to not want anything to do with it or charge you $60+ an hour to fiddle with something they've never seen before.

Ew. It might be a pain to get up under the dash and replace the bulbs in my Plodge, but at least I can do it myself without having to pull the cluster, and the bulbs are less than a dollar each.

This was a classic example of the mid-century planned obsolescence ethos in action -- a fancy, proprietary gadget that looked impressive in the showroom and made you feel like you were driving a spaceship for as long as it worked. But when it fizzled, you had to pay the dealership beaucoup bucks to fix it, assuming the parts were still available, or try to fix it yourself even though it was deliberately made nearly impossible for the owner to repair, or even get at, or you just had to deal with it not working until you finally got so annoyed with its failure -- and the failure of various other fancy, proprietary gadgets, that you just traded it in on another impressive-looking piece of work loaded with a whole new string of proprietary gadgets to bedazzle you.

 

[plain old dave]

Well, to a car guy, keeping obsolete technology going is a good part of the hobby. I've spent the last 7 odd years working in the Avionics and Armament shop at my squadron, so a an electroluminescent dash isn't that difficult a job, all things considered. Go through it once completely, and it's good for 20-30 years.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[MikeKardec]

Well, Snoqualmie Pass on Interstate 90 is about half that elevation, but your point is well taken. VW microbuses, the "classic" ones, are particularly ill-suited to Interstate highways and mountain passes. They just weren't made for the superslab.

No but they have their place. They were built to replace the horse cart in postwar Europe and we now live in a world where there is no longer many simple, effective options (no matter how slow) for vehicles in the developing world. The air cooled VWs were perfect, light, easy to fix, hard to kill. If you look at price (the few non computerized, simple vehicles like the Land Cruiser 70 Series) are pretty unaffordable unless you're an NGO or state office. Computers or not the parts are very expensive and harder and harder to get.

 

[MikeKardec]

First result I got was this --

This was a classic example of the mid-century planned obsolescence ethos in action -- a fancy, proprietary gadget that looked impressive in the showroom and made you feel like you were driving a spaceship for as long as it worked. But when it fizzled, you had to pay the dealership beaucoup bucks to fix it, assuming the parts were still available, or try to fix it yourself even though it was deliberately made nearly impossible for the owner to repair, or even get at ...

Too true and that is all there is these days ... now it's every vehicle and nearly every system! I get your point but that wonderful old 300 looks positively naive and easy to deal with compared to the diabolical vehicles of today. They do run longer and much more reliably than the cars up to the 1970s (those that don't suicide in infancy like my Mini) but I doubt you could restore one in 50 years ... unless you bought up a refrigerated warehouse full of parts now; or maybe just a second, complete, car!

Actually, I take some of that back, ingenuity being what it is there will probably be someone restoring them but by then we'll probably be forced to use self driving cars for insurance or "safety" reasons and it won't be worth it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

On my 1997 Toyota, half the dash lights have been out for years, and there's no easy way to replace them. You have to dismantle the whole dashboard to do it. Ridiculous.

There was a strong push thruout the thirties in the nascent consumer movement for standardization -- the argument was that any form proprietary technology had little real lasting value for the actual user of the product if it cost him more to repair or to replace than an equivalent device using standardized parts. There were several attempts in the radio industry to impose propietary parts -- for example, RCA designed many of its radios so that they could only use RCA's metal tubes, but repairmen and end users were so outraged by this that the practice came to an abrupt end.

The difference between the thirties and the fifties was that in the fifties people were more willing to buy into gimmickry for the sake of gimmickry.

 

[tonyb]

No but they have their place. They were built to replace the horse cart in postwar Europe and we now live in a world where there is no longer many simple, effective options (no matter how slow) for vehicles in the developing world. The air cooled VWs were perfect, light, easy to fix, hard to kill. If you look at price (the few non computerized, simple vehicles like the Land Cruiser 70 Series) are pretty unaffordable unless you're an NGO or state office. Computers or not the parts are very expensive and harder and harder to get.

We went from making cars fit our existing infrastructure and way of living to making our infrastructure and way of living fit our cars. For the past 70 years the patterns of our daily lives -- where we reside, where we work, how we recreate, where we shop, etc. -- have been hugely influenced by the automobile. And the automobile industry is huge -- manufacturing, sales, maintenance and repairs, parts, road construction and maintenance, insurance, etc., etc.

Cars are here to stay, especially here in the States, and especially here in the wide-open spaces of the Western States. Propulsion systems are changing rapidly, and navigation systems aren't far behind. But woe be to the politician who suggests we abandon the personal vehicle. People just love their cars and the lifestyle they make possible. We like to go where we wish to go, when we wish to go there, without waiting, without the company of strangers.

No slam of public transit here. I wish there were more of it, in those places where it can operate efficiently. But in places like greater Denver (which has a much more extensive light-rail system than Seattle, for instance), getting people to use the rail system involves building huge parking facilities at the train stations, so those suburbanites have a place to put their cars.