3/1/1988 Pontiac announces the end of the Fiero automobile – Was anyone sad about that?
Pontiac Fiero
3/1/1937 In New Jersey one of the largest dealerships of the era was opened. The Miro Brothers opened a state-of-the-art facility with “one of the largest and most modern showrooms in the country,” measuring 38′ x 40′ . The dealership was service station and dealt for Buick, Packard, Oldsmoble, and REO trucks. The east side of the building served as a Mobil gas station and service garage during the World War II.
So I left a couple of photos out of the last post. But I wanted to show (IMHO) a couple stars of the show and one of the strange one.
I covered the Galaxies and 500’s, however, here are a couple more: (Come..on..you would be able to pick just one or two either!!!)
(In no particular order)
Crown Victorian (before the exploding gas tanks and cop lights)
Oh..the Chrome!!
Did I mention the Chrome?
Just look at that smile..I mean bumper!!!
Not really comparable to the Crown Vic – this Starliner was, although not original, very nicely done.
Ford Starliner with a little custom work.
Oh..check out the intake setup on that Starliner!!!!
OK.. I know at least one of my readers will like this next car.
It is a 1965 Ford Mustang Station Wagon. Originally a concept created by William Sibo (designer for Ford Motor Company). He actually built this car from the original drawings. Car is currently owned by Ken Berger. The car now has a 429, rack and pinion steering C-6 auto trans, coil over suspension and power brakes, A/C and stereo system.
No Middle Road - Hate it or Love it.
There you go!
I can’t get past the that rear end….but this helps:
From square boxes to sloping roof lines to coke bottle shapes, car lines have evolved. Sometimes they just went way wrong.
I’ve had my fair share of cars and their shapes and lines were polar opposites. My 1966 Imapla (my first car) was long and sleek, my next car was a Dodge Dart boxy but with a good roof line. Oh but it got worse, my first nearly new car was ….wait for it…..a Ford Granada. Yes…boxy…maybe a little roof line, but it got me around.
After that a series of car including a ’70 Chevelle (you know those great lines), a European Ford Escort (while stationed overseas) and a 83 Camaro (that had great lines on that one). I owned one more Granada and a VW Rabbit (diesel) and two Toyota Celicas ( like the lies of those), a couple pickups and my two Vettes and my Mustang. They spanned decades and many different design lines.
Some of the worse, in my opinion, were some of the best-selling and some that go for huge money now that they are classic muscle cars.
The absolute worse were the pumpkin or watermelon seed cars (that’s my coinage).
Here’s an example: 1996 Chevy Impala
A far cry from my 1966 Impala’s lines
1966 Chevy Impala
Now, I was looking at the lines of my ’70 Mustang and I’d have to say compared to the ’70 Dodge Super Bee the lines (and include the graphics, moldings and even panel seams) the Mustangs lines are much cleaner.
Here is an outlined image of the Dodge:
Dodge
I tried to be fair with my hand drawn lines. The flow of the graphic and their awkward end as they go to the relatively square door make it almost look like the designers said..”OH Crap!!! We forgot the door!!” The fenders have nice lines, as do the quarter panels, but in total it isn’t smooth. HOLD ON, before any of you Mopar folks get all worked up, I’d own a Dodge Super Bee, in a heart beat, especially if someone parked it out side my house and tossed me the keys…and I drive that 383 like I stole it!!!
Now look at the lines of my ’70 Mustang…(are you sick of seeing it yet?)
70 Mustang lines
Just the forward edge (hinged) of the door being shaped it a big plus in my opinion. The sloping of the roof-line into the trunk is another smooth difference, and keep in mind this is just the coupe, not the fast back for the sports back, relatively speaking my Mustang is rather square compared to it siblings, the Mach I and Boss models. Compare the side window openings. The Dodge is very angular, the Mustang’s has a smoother flow.
I could go on and on, we could talk about the 70’s Volares or the even move into the 80’s and talk about the Ford Fairmonts or Chryslers K-Car (I can hear Bill now!!!) but let me hear from you. What do you have to say about car lines, past or present?
Tokyo 17 Car Design Forum opens for registration. Our Tokyo 2017 Car Design Forum has launched, and the website is open for registrations now. More News …
Hyundai-Kia design chief outlines car design philosophy – Interview. by: Roger Stansfield. Materials at the heart of the Paris Motor Show. 20 Oct 2016 …
I was reading an article recently in one of my favorite periodical…you know…from the best auto magazine publishing company, IMHO, Hemmings, specifically Muscle Machines. The article was entitled Lessons of Originality and written by Terry McGean. I enjoy his pieces in HMM.
This article pointed out the importance of all original muscle car specimens, used as models for restoration and an understanding of how they were built, meaning exactly, how and why they were put together in the manner they were. This is a very valid point.
Terry goes on to say that today’s restorations are often taken too far and lose some of their original character. Again, another valid fact one can’t argue, but…..
For example, my 1970 Mustang coupe’s shock towers were stamped out and the car assembled without access to grease fittings. The towers had to be altered, in most cases just cut with a torch, so that the fittings could be reached. That is a known engineering/factory flaw and is a cool ( I think) characteristic that makes it unique. ‘Fixing’ that by replacing with re-manufactured parts with the cut out already there (I don’t believe these exist..but humor me here..ok..I know you usually do..and thanks for that!!) would be disappointing . It’s not like a safety hazard or something serious.
1970 Mustang Shock tower with cut out for grease fitting.
But there is just too much emphasis placed on some ‘original’ characteristics, like the correct paint mark or undercoating on parts. Irregular panel alignment or even one of the bigger deals, paint, specifically what is known as orange peel or that somewhat dimpled look to some factory paint jobs, are considered the epitome of originality and should re-create. To me that is just nonsense.
If you were to look at the side of my 07 Corvette you’ll notice the orange peel effect which looks like the surface of …. yes…an orange. This is said to be very important when judging a car in some levels of the business. But back in the days when I worked in my father’s body shop businesses, orange peel was a product of sloppy work. That is Terry’s point as well, that the cars were assembled with much less care, a lot less care than, of course we take with restoration. (More on that in a bit.)
Here is where I personally begin to draw the line about ‘caring’ whether a car is “restored” to original. First, if it’s restored, it’s not original or re-phrased – “It’s only original once!” (Don’t worry I’m going to drag you down that discussion path too far.) Second, small things like the realignment of the doors or hood or other panels doesn’t make it any more unoriginal if it’s restored nor does it distract from the car at all. The art of the restoration is what is really important and minor improvements are nearly unavoidable.
Let me use the restoration (we’ll call it “Part I”) of my 1970 Mustang coupe. I intended to restore it to what was possible back in 1969-1970 then the cars were built. Everything is period, not original to the car (swapped a 1970 302 for the original 250) but available as a possible option. I love the feel of this car, it still performs as it did back then, even with the aligned hood. At this point in its life span the car is as close to original as it’s going to get (it still has drum brakes). I’ve realigned the panels, I’ve replaced the motor mounts with polyurethane. In the next round of restoration the car will enter its “restro-mod” phase. It will take the Mustang way past the line I drew the first time around.
And why not? Hey…come…on, we project so much emotion in on our cars…’She’s just not running right’ or ‘That car just doesn’t like the cold’. Why not project that they all wish to grow and to change to become more than they were?!??! (Too much of a stretch…let me re-read it…..hang on…mmm….umm…………yeah too much…since I already typed it…I’ll leave it…no sense wasting bytes…pls tell me you got that?????)
Terry mentions that the folks building cars back in the 1960’s often cared little about what they were actually doing and of course none of them were as concerned as we are when we restore them. Now I wasn’t at the factories back then, but I bet in general they took a lot of pride in their work. Of course there were those that didn’t and those that did Monday – Thursday, but on Fridays, not so much. This happens in every business. However, back then many things were done by hand and during long shifts, back-breaking work to be sure. Not to mention that the engineering tolerances weren’t nearly as tight as they are today, it just wasn’t a concern. My only experience with the manufacturing side was my visit to the Corvette assembly plant (I’m going back this year) and it’s hard to tell what everyone everyone was feeling that Tuesday, but you could see the dedication to the overall process. Union’s have made a huge impact and as has technology, they both have had negative and positive effects on the business – but that’s another article.
I worry (but not too much) that the purists will ruin the art of restoration. Terry’s article reminds us that preserving original muscles car are important, as reminder of how it use to be done. But I say they shouldn’t be the only measure of a restored car. Restore it to enjoy it.
This is the part of the engine series where I list the uses for the power plant. The 283, as I mentioned, carried Chevy engines to the next level, by being the first engine that car manufacturers were able to coax out the same horsepower as the displacement.
From 1957 (its inception) to 1959 the 283 was the base model V8 for nearly all Chevys, coming in a 2 and 4 barrel versions with the 4 barrel being the main power plant for the Corvette. In 1958 the 4 barrel version was dubbed the Super Turbo Fire with 220-230 hp with 9.5:1 heads. (Toss that name in with other versions like the 348 Turbo Thrust and the Super Turbo Thrust which sported 3 two barrel carbs.) The other premier engine during that period was of course the FI used in the Corvette with 9.5:1 and 10.0:1 compression.
The 283 Super Turbo Fire
1960-1961 saw the base 283 drop to a 2 barrel and muster just 185 hp. The bright spots were engines used only in the Corvette, the dual quad and the FI engines. 1961 also saw the 283 go MARINE – nope not joining that elite military branch but rather Chris-Craft the boat builder, sealed it tight and give a duty on their Cavalier Cruiser vessel.
Marine 283 for Chris Craft Cavalier Cruiser
Not much changed in 1962-1963, at least nothing very exciting. Chevy dropped the dual quad as an option (although I bet you could still get it done) and the 283 dropped in hp to 170 and as was no longer an option for the Corvette, but was added to the Impala.
As perhaps a last chance to breathe some life into 283 Chevy gave it a bump in hp to 195 and it found a new home in the new Chevy II in 1964 and 1965 a 4V was added give the iron 220 hp and another new home the ’65 Chevelle.
But that couldn’t save the 283, it was time for Chevy to move on and 1966 was its final year. It served as the base V8 that year as an option for the Chevy II and Chevelle and the other Chevy sedan’s, like my 1966 Impala.
Although it seems like I give this a quick pass (not a long list of models) the 283 served nearly all models of Chevy from 1957 to 1966, listing them all would be, well ..repetitive . Interesting enough it never crossed over to the other GM brands. But it did make it into the Canada made Studebaker cars in 1965 and 1966.
During the it’s life span the 283 was offered with every transmission available for that year. From the torque glide to the power glide automatic transmissions and even a few 3 and 4 speed manuals. Additionally, I was surprised to find that it was offered with air suspension with some automatic.
Did the 283 really die? Nope it received the cam from the 327 and became Chevy’s 307!!
Notable:
– The 327 followed the 283 and although it was an entirely hunk of iron, to keep cost down Chevy used some 283 components initially.
– GM’s RPO 579E option on the 283. 579E was called the Air Box. It was perhaps the first production cold air induction system(at least for Chevy). It consisted of a plenum box mounted on the fender well of the driver’s side. The box was fitted to an opening in the bulkhead next to the radiator with an air filter inside. The duck work ran to the fuelies injection unit. Records indicate that there were only 43 produced in 1957.
1957 Corvette AirBox
– Corvette Fuelies had a reputation for hard starts and finicky operation and many were replaced with the standard carburetor (1957)…Flash Forward the 1984 Corvette Crossfire (fuel injected) (Of which I was a previous owner) suffered from finicky operating and some were replaced with carburetor set ups.
I hope you enjoyed this little bit of engine history and as always, thanks for reading.
The correct should be – the 283 received the “crank” from the 327 (not the cam) and became the 307.
1957 – 1958 saw the use of the New 283 engine in Chevy‘s including the Corvette.
The Corvette was fitted with the Rochester RamJet and RAM’s horn intake as the RPO Code 579D. But recently during some research I read that there was another modification.
It was called the Air Box Option, RPO 579E and it was perhaps the first production cold air induction system(at least for Chevy).
It consisted of a plenum box mounted on the fender well of the driver’s side. The box was fitted to an opening in the bulkhead next to the radiator with an air filter inside. The duck work ran to the fuelies injection unit.
Records indicate that there were only 43 produced in 1957.
Oh yes, believe it or not, the 283 put the Corvette at the cutting edge of performance in 1957, fitted with the RamJet FI (fuel injection) system (“fuelie” was the gearhead term for that). In 1958 the 283 was the base engine for the Corvette, but the 283 that use to put on 283 hp was tuned to create an even 290 hp. If that wasn’t enough for you (of course it wasn’t enough, two words that should never be heard together ‘enough’ and ‘horsepower’…unless…the word ‘not’ precedes them). The RamJet FI was an available option RPO 579D.
Additional configurations were dual four barrel carbs that produced 270 hp, they were either Rochester or Carter AFB. The cam was changed in 1958 to give 0.398 inches of lift, improvements made to get more oil to the lifters and the exhaust manifold was reworked, called the Ram Horn’s manifold. There was a change in how the 283 was mounted. Chevy used the 3 point system with a mount on each side and one at the rear of the engine at the transmission.
Intake manifold for the 283 Double Quad
Dual Quad set up on a 283
In 1961 the FI jumped the engines’ horsepower to 315. (Hey, the base corvette in 2007 was 400 hp.) The FI wasn’t the only improvement for the 283 in 1961. It was treated with a set of solid lifter, improved heads and hydraulic cam which helped the block rich 315 hp, easily. This would be as far as the 283 would go in horsepower – in production. 1961 was also the last time the dual four barrel carbs were available as an optional configuration.
By 1962 the 283 was replaces by an entirely new engine the 327 (that’s another mini series) as the premier Chevy small block. The 283 was dropped from the a power plant for the Corvette to a base engine for Chevy’s passenger and used from 1963 to 1964. Its horsepower dropped to 170 and 195 for two configurations. A small bright was a four barrel configuration for 1965-67 that produced 220 hp. (That was the configuration of my 1966 Impala convertible.)
Of note is the use of the 283 in Chevy’s light trucks with a two barrel configuration for most of the models in 1958 to 1962. It produced only 160 horsepower. For the 1963 to 1967 light truck models the hp was increased to 175.
