1940s/1950s cars vs. 1960s cars

[plain old dave]

It was well known at the time that the beach imposed about a 10% reduction in speed, due to the drag of the wet sand and dense sea level air. The same car would go 10% faster on a hard cement or asphalt road farther inland. On the other hand all cars were prepared by expert mechanics and tuned to do their utmost. A car off the showroom floor, not broken in or prepared in any way would be somewhat slower.

Ok, if we grant your assertion that the 300Bs that ran on the sand were race-prepped by Lee Petty or whoever (an assertion that isn't well-supported by the documents IMO; clearly IMPLIED but not well-supported) and would be 10% faster on asphalt, the "somewhat slower" for a showroom stocker would be roughly what the "race prepped" car did on the sand: Mid to high 130s.

So, like I said. The Chrysler 300 Letter Series were the first vehicles available to the American motorist capable of 130+ mph with no modifications; buy 300B, get on I-40, drop hammer, break 130 on a long enough straight enough road. A revolutionary innovation.

 

[Stearmen]

Ok, if we grant your assertion that the 300Bs that ran on the sand were race-prepped by Lee Petty or whoever (an assertion that isn't well-supported by the documents IMO; clearly IMPLIED but not well-supported) and would be 10% faster on asphalt, the "somewhat slower" for a showroom stocker would be roughly what the "race prepped" car did on the sand: Mid to high 130s.

So, like I said. The Chrysler 300 Letter Series were the first vehicles available to the American motorist capable of 130+ mph with no modifications; buy 300B, get on I-40, drop hammer, break 130 on a long enough straight enough road. A revolutionary innovation.

No.

 

[vitanola]

Saw the pics, and that era is exactly why I prefer 50s and 60s era cars. I have spent too many Sunday afternoons stuck behind the Smoky Mountain Model A Club on Norris Freeway as those things struggle to maintain 45 up even modest hills. I appreciate old iron as much as anybody else, but it should be used on roads where it doesn't obstruct traffic. Speed limit on the Norris Freeway along most of it is 55 and TN has not had a formal minimum speed limit law in decades; you technically could get a ticket for reckless driving for not maintaining highway speed, and that's usually seen by police as 5-10 or more under the posted limit.

Um. The roads are to be SHARED, aren't they? A fellow who complains about being "stuck behind" the Model A club impresses me as the sort of fellow who gets angry at cyclists (who, by the way have the same rights to the road as motorists. Remember that they were there first, and were the initial promotors of the "good roads" movement) blows by agricultural machinery and runs into Amis buggies. I live in a rather flat rural area with a great many Amish, many tractors, and a fair number of cyclists, as well as a large population of, er- TRANSPLANTS whose families came up from the mountain country a generation or two ago. They do seem to be the folks who show more "attitude " to the slower moving traffic on the road. Must be some cultural difference.

That noted, there is indeed a world of difference in being "stuck behind" a group of A Model (or even T Model) automobiles here in the flatlands and being similarly "stuck" in the mountains.

That said, I honestly do not believe that there is a single surface (meaning a road which is not limited access) which should ever have a speed limit of more than 45MPH, and there is certainly no unpaved road where anyone has any business running at more than twenty.

Here in Michigan our legislature is considering raising speeds on the interstate highways to 80mph in rural areas. I'm all for that. The roads are smooth and can be easily negotiated at those speeds, but for heavens sake our twisty, curvy country lanes have speed limits of 55 or 60' which means that folks drive at 70 to 75. That is insane.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here in Michigan our legislature is considering raising speeds on the interstate highways to 80mph in rural areas. I'm all for that. The roads are smooth and can be easily negotiated at those speeds, but for heavens sake our twisty, curvy country lanes have speed limits of 55 or 60' which means that folks drive at 70 to 75. That is insane.

Yup. No one has any business doing 60 on ordinary two-lane, let alone 70 or 75. Even US1 here is a real hazard at those speeds, and people get killed every year because of it.

We've started to get Amish colonists in Maine in recent years, along with fatal car-buggy collisions. I don't care how big somebody's engine is, they don't own the roads, and if they can't share them they should be taken off them.

 

[vitanola]

I firmly believe that anyone who is convicted of speeding more than 15% above posted limits should receive a three or four year driver's license restriction limiting them to an automobile weighing at least two tons fitted with an engine of less that 18BHP, and a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour. That ought to teach them patience.

 

[tonyb]

I am soooo (as the kids say these days) of two minds on this "share the road" business. The real problem is not the car drivers (not most of them, anyway), and it's not the bicyclists (ditto). The problem is that we ask our roads to do more than they reasonably can, at least during certain hours, in certain locales.

Limited access highways are safer than other roads (per passenger mile travelled) for several reasons, not the least of which is that there are no intersections (duh, as the kids say these days), and because the vehicles are moving in the same direction at similar speeds. And there are no pedestians. Or bicyclists.

Obviously, any motor vehicle weighing more than a ton (much more, in most cases) traveling at speeds in excess of, say, 15 miles per hour, presents a very real hazard to a bicyclist, or a pedestrian. I suspect there will come a time, long after I'll be around to see it, when people will study the 20th and early 21st centuries and shake their heads at the risks we took in getting from place to place. By then, though, self-driving personal vehicles will be the norm, I'd imagine.

Until then, I'm all for stringent enforcement of our traffic laws, all of which just make sense. (Well, almost all.) I habitually drive a tad over the posted speed limits, which means I'm mostly a right-lane driver. If the speed limit were more stringently enforced, I'd drive a tad slower, as would most others. If I had a say in the matter, that's how I'd vote.

A friend's daughter, who is now in her early 20s, tailgates and does lots of lane-changing, etc. After riding with her for a few miles on southbound Interstate 5 I asked her how much time she figured she saved by all that heavy-footed driving. She shrugged. I suggested she do the arithmetic: If tailgating and abrupt lane changing and all of that has you averaging 62 mph over a six mile stretch, and driving a bit more sanely has you averaging 57, you risked, if not your life, at least your driving record and your insurance rates (and your brakes, and your nerves and those of all those other drivers), to save 30 seconds.

When the young lady was attending school in Southern California she got it in her head that a motorcycle would be just the thing for her. "The way she drives!?," I said to her parents, while stressing just how strongly I felt that they do all they can to discourage her from ever getting a two-wheeled motor vehicle.

 

[Stanley Doble]

I'm all for respect on the roads but it should work both ways. If you are driving a slow moving vehicle and other vehicles line up behind with no good opportunities to pass, pull over and let them go by.

I have always done this, while driving a school bus, antique car, or when towing a car or trailer. Some of these are long and not easy to get past, while some people are nervous and hate passing. Get a couple of Mugwumps behind you and everyone else is stymied.

If there are more than 2 cars think about pulling over as soon as you get to a safe spot.

For all you or I know, there could be someone back there rushing a sick child to the hospital.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Don't forget that Jesus came of his own Accord.

I personally prefer young Joshua and his motorcycle - "The walls of Jericho fell, and the roar of his Triumph was heard throughout the land."

+1

Most people are good about that around here. There is a lot of Amish and Farm equipment traffic and 90% of the time, they move over as soon as someone pulls up behind them. The Amish will even give you a friendly wave as you pass. The geezers in the Buicks are harder to navigate around haha!

I'm all for respect on the roads but it should work both ways. If you are driving a slow moving vehicle and other vehicles line up behind with no good opportunities to pass, pull over and let them go by.

 

[MikeKardec]

A friend's daughter, who is now in her early 20s, tailgates and does lots of lane-changing, etc. After riding with her for a few miles on southbound Interstate 5 I asked her how much time she figured she saved by all that heavy-footed driving. She shrugged. I suggested she do the arithmetic: If tailgating and abrupt lane changing and all of that has you averaging 62 mph over a six mile stretch, and driving a bit more sanely has you averaging 57, you risked, if not your life, at least your driving record and your insurance rates (and your brakes, and your nerves and those of all those other drivers), to save 30 seconds.

The best way to get to know someone you are going to invest time in, like dating or a business partnership, would be to go for a drive with them. People's hidden but inherent personalities just come out ... enough time behind the wheel and you truly have seen the real person behind the mask. Driving I have a very split personality, an old Land Rover (super slow) and a '73 Alfa GTV (faster than you'd think for the period and the best handling/human perception interface I have experienced this side of a BMW M3) so I'm very considerate of people with slow vehicles, I pull off to the side when I'm driving one yet tend to zip around when I can get away with it safely and have the car to do it in.

The people I DON'T have sympathy for are some of our SoCal bicyclists who should be obeying the same laws as I do but instead play games all over the road, blocking traffic when they could pull over, suddenly becoming a pedestrian and dodging into a crosswalk and (my pettist peeve) never stopping for stop signs unless the result would be sure death. I know it's a pain to stop and start on a bike but it just seems they are taking their lives (and mine) for granted. That dodging into a cross walk thing is fine if they would stop or slow down, but at 3 to 5 times the speed of a pedestrian they should realize that it's hard for people around them to realign their thinking as quickly as they want to change the rules!

Have I become a crabby old guy? Damn kids! ... well, actually many of them are older (and fitter) than I am.

 

[tonyb]

The best way to get to know someone you are going to invest time in, like dating or a business partnership, would be to go for a drive with them. People's hidden but inherent personalities just come out ... enough time behind the wheel and you truly have seen the real person behind the mask. ...

I've made the same observation at least a thousand times. My advice to people considering a significant relationship is to take a long road trip with the prospective partner. You'll see how well both of you handle the inevitable hassles and missed turns and miscommunications. You'll learn how well you really converse, and how well you accommodate periods of quiet. And you'll remind yourself that even Marilyn Monroe occasionally let out a little wind.

And yes, driving habits may very well say more things about that person than that person knows. But I've been surprised by more than one person's behind-the-wheel behavior, knowing how that person is in most other contexts. One of the most genuinely decent, humble, considerate people I have the pleasure of knowing is something quite other than that when she pilots her Honda Accord through traffic. She hollers. Seriously, she routinely hollers invectives that most of us seasoned swearers reserve for only the most abject of a******s. It's quite amusing, really. And endearing, in its way.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I didn't get my driver's licence until I was 21 because I couldn't abide driving on a learners permit with my mother in the car. She'd grab the wheel, point to things in the road, yell, swear, and sometimes grab *me.* And that was just puilling out of the driveway.

That said, I find riding with her while she drives the most entertaining experience imaginable. Put her in a crowded parking lot with a bunch of oblivious out-of-staters in SUVs and you'll hear permutations of gutter English you never imagined existed.

 

[MikeKardec]

I'm sure everyone has noticed how territorial dogs are when they are in cars? Weird that people can behave in exactly the same manner. I used to think that people's exaggerated behavior behind the wheel was because in their deep unconscious they were nervous about the process of driving, wielding a multi ton deadly weapon on roads choked with others doing the same. But watching the dogs, I wonder if it's the BARRIER, the insulation between you and everyone else that makes some behave like a participant on one of these internet forums needing to demolish the opinion of someone they disagree with. I'll have to watch people in convertibles and on motorcycles to see if their behavior is equally aggressive. With dogs I'm sure it's the barrier that makes them that way ... a dog on leash is often more territorial than one that is not, I suspect it's the clear limitation of the boundary.

 

[tonyb]

There's gotta be something to that, Mike. Combine the quasi-anonymity of being in an enclosed vehicle with the sense of security imparted by that couple of tons of metal the driver is surrounded by along with the hundreds of horsepower at his disposal and you get most of the makings of Invincible Man. Just add a dash of frustration and a sizable dollop of fundamental insecurity and, holymotherofgod, watch out!

 

[Braz]

and a '73 Alfa GTV (faster than you'd think for the period and the best handling/human perception interface I have experienced this side of a BMW M3)

I am so envious that you have a Bertone era GTV. Mine, a '68, rusted into oblivion but I still remember what a wonderfully balanced car it was. You are absolutely right about feel the car provides. I still have a GTV-6 which is a fun car but not as much fun as the earlier GTV.

 

[MikeKardec]

I am so envious that you have a Bertone era GTV. Mine, a '68, rusted into oblivion but I still remember what a wonderfully balanced car it was. You are absolutely right about feel the car provides. I still have a GTV-6 which is a fun car but not as much fun as the earlier GTV.

It's also one of the few cars of it's sort that a tall guy can fit in ... probably because there is no sunroof. It's all pulled apart at the moment, Wes Ingram is rebuilding the fuel injection and the top of the engine. I'd mostly owned American V8s from the '60s, some sporty cars (Mustang, Corvette) but, oh man, when I got in this little thing I realized what I'd been missing! Similar acceleration, better handling, and VASTLY better feed back, you always know exactly where you are in the performance envelope ... insane! It's also amazingly fun at 45 mph. I love that. No need to speed ... though I'm not sure I've always been good.

 

[Stearmen]

I just realized, by talking about cars made from 1940-1970, are we talking American or the rest of the world? American cars after 1939 took a decided downwards spiral in looks. Theirs a reason that the Hot Roder's prefer pre39 cars, they just look so good! Now, Germany, Italy and Great Britain, their are some nice looking cars, and pretty good handling.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think 1938-42 was pretty much the apotheosis of American car styling and practicality -- once the trunk hump was streamlined into the rear end of the car and the prow-nose replaced the radiator-front, you had a very elegant shape and style, one which was also extremely roomy and practical. I think styling started to go downhill with the "which way is it going" 1947 Studebaker, and it was downhill from there.

That "long and low" aesthetic the Boys came up from the mid-fifties onward is uncomfortable to get into, especially for a woman in a skirt, and takes up way too much space in garages and parking lots. My own garage, built in the early forties, would not be able to house most of the Detroit behemoths of the late fifties -- the back end would stick out and I couldn't close the door.

 

[MikeKardec]

The low thing was useful handling-wise but really few of the American cars of the '50 even tried to take advantage of it. I totally agree about far too many cars being too low, I'm fairly sure it's why so many people bought SUVs over the years ... to the point where now their "utility" is nearly all gone and they are really just higher cars.

Two of my favorite cars -- The lovely Buick Sedanette ...

And the lovelier Lancia Aurelia --

Lancias are full of delicious details, those hubcaps screw on!

 

[Fading Fast]

^^^ beautiful cars and not surprising you like both - their lines echo each other.

 

[scottyrocks]

And there's the Hemi V-8. While it had been available in the relatively heavy New Yorker since 1951, Chrysler invented the muscle car in mid-1955 by putting a race-tuned 300hp 331 Hemi in the lightweight Windsor and removing a lot of the chrome on the C-300.

It could be argued that the 1949/50 Oldsmobile Rocket 88 had the Chrysler product beat by about 5 years. It can also be argued that the 88 was the first factory hot rod of the 'modern' era.