Since we were "Discussing" cars, here is what IM talking about!
http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Xa3kbV1QE
http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Xa3kbV1QE
Something for your garage...The ultimate car!
- Thread starter kenkart
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
DesertTortoise
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,189
I can smell the over rich mixture in the exhaust! Gak.
super-sweeper
Well-known member
I hope that video didn't spoil what my DreamSoto should sound like!
Those 300s
Were made to outrun and out handle anything else on the road, at the same time have lots of passenger room and luxury,these would leave a Corvette or Thunderbird in the dust.in 55 and 56 the 300s dominated Nascar...they were very expensive and very thirsty, so only the rich could afford them, truly a bankers hotrod!..in 1957 a local business owner in Lenoir , my hometown, bought one, in those days hwy 321 from Lenoir to Hickory was a 2 lane road, the man whos name was Ed Newton,who owned Newton Trucking Company,had a reputation for always having a fast car, decided to see how fast it would run, he left Lenoir and by the time he got to Hudson,"A small town between Lenoir and Hickory", Police had already radioed ahead to Granite Falls, "Another little town on the hwy", Granite falls laid out the "Whammy" strips, these were 2 rubber strips spaced a few feet apart that calculated how fast a car was going, they were connected to a speedometer that read up to 120 mph, when he crossed it, he was going so fast it broke it, Granite Falls radioed Hickory to set up a road block at the Catawba county line..Hickry radioed back saying he was already gone!..the police and Hwy patrol Fords were left standing in the road, later Ed admitted to it saying when he crossed the bridge the 150 mph speedometer was reading 145....this was in 1957...these were truly the fastest things on the road.
Were made to outrun and out handle anything else on the road, at the same time have lots of passenger room and luxury,these would leave a Corvette or Thunderbird in the dust.in 55 and 56 the 300s dominated Nascar...they were very expensive and very thirsty, so only the rich could afford them, truly a bankers hotrod!..in 1957 a local business owner in Lenoir , my hometown, bought one, in those days hwy 321 from Lenoir to Hickory was a 2 lane road, the man whos name was Ed Newton,who owned Newton Trucking Company,had a reputation for always having a fast car, decided to see how fast it would run, he left Lenoir and by the time he got to Hudson,"A small town between Lenoir and Hickory", Police had already radioed ahead to Granite Falls, "Another little town on the hwy", Granite falls laid out the "Whammy" strips, these were 2 rubber strips spaced a few feet apart that calculated how fast a car was going, they were connected to a speedometer that read up to 120 mph, when he crossed it, he was going so fast it broke it, Granite Falls radioed Hickory to set up a road block at the Catawba county line..Hickry radioed back saying he was already gone!..the police and Hwy patrol Fords were left standing in the road, later Ed admitted to it saying when he crossed the bridge the 150 mph speedometer was reading 145....this was in 1957...these were truly the fastest things on the road.
super-sweeper
Well-known member
wow, sounds like a fun time, Kenkart! Were the Police friends of Ed who aided in measuring his top-speed, or were they attempting (Well, Failing!) at getting Ed off the road for speeding? Maybe the cops just got jealous of that high-speed luxury!
DesertTortoise
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,189
Top speed of a 300C with a non production manual trans in a two way flying mile at Daytona Beach in 1955 was a bit over 127 mph. Later on Chrysler engineers bumped the top speed considerably on a non production test article but that required not just a manual trans, but replacing the power steering with manual steering, replacing the hydraulic lifters with mechanical lifters and more aggresive cams. That produced a top speed of 139 mph. It required the further removal of the exhaust system, air cleaner and the application of cardboard and clay tape streamlining to obtain speeds over 140 mph. There were no production cars at that time that could manage speeds as high as 140-145 mph and it would be a couple of decades before there would be.
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/hrdp_0603_1955_chrysler_c_300/
http://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler/chrysler-300-at-daytona-beach.html
Lets at least stick half way to reality. Those cars, while fast by the standards of the day, were poor handling and had old fashioned, weak drum brakes.
For comparison sake my 1993 Audi 90 with a 2.8 liter (170.8 cubic inch) V-6 is governed to a top speed of 125 mph and it will engage the governor given enough open road.
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/hrdp_0603_1955_chrysler_c_300/
http://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler/chrysler-300-at-daytona-beach.html
Lets at least stick half way to reality. Those cars, while fast by the standards of the day, were poor handling and had old fashioned, weak drum brakes.
For comparison sake my 1993 Audi 90 with a 2.8 liter (170.8 cubic inch) V-6 is governed to a top speed of 125 mph and it will engage the governor given enough open road.
super-sweeper
Well-known member
Brakes are the last thing you're thinking of when you're speeding down the road in a Chrysler!
It is a well known fact...
57 58 and 60 300s set passenger car speed records at Bonneville,,,you think what you want, but all the testers agreed the 300s were the best handling cars of their time,completely equalling todays plastic boxes despite carrying 4500 pounds!you really have no clue what you are talking about as you obviously have never driven an old car in good shape with modern tires, now I do agree tires are much improved, also the 58 300 with the 392 Hemi was available with Bendix fuel injection, while troublesome, it really would run, the story I told was told down thru the years , both by several older policeman and Ed himself,,if he said it , I would take it to the bank, the highway patrol Fords of the period had 312 interceptor engines and a top speed of around 120, no match for the 300...also, the Chrysler Center Plane brakes , with the original heavy duty linings, not available today because of asbestos, were absolutely the best brakes ever engeneered, discs, while having resistance to fade, also warp like mad when you run thru a puddle when they are hot!
57 58 and 60 300s set passenger car speed records at Bonneville,,,you think what you want, but all the testers agreed the 300s were the best handling cars of their time,completely equalling todays plastic boxes despite carrying 4500 pounds!you really have no clue what you are talking about as you obviously have never driven an old car in good shape with modern tires, now I do agree tires are much improved, also the 58 300 with the 392 Hemi was available with Bendix fuel injection, while troublesome, it really would run, the story I told was told down thru the years , both by several older policeman and Ed himself,,if he said it , I would take it to the bank, the highway patrol Fords of the period had 312 interceptor engines and a top speed of around 120, no match for the 300...also, the Chrysler Center Plane brakes , with the original heavy duty linings, not available today because of asbestos, were absolutely the best brakes ever engeneered, discs, while having resistance to fade, also warp like mad when you run thru a puddle when they are hot!
DesertTortoise
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,189
Kenkart, I have driven lots of old cars with modern radials. Kingpin suspensions like those suffered major camber changes as the wheels moved through their travel and the camber change was the opposite of what was desirable for best cornering, as the inside wheel in a corner cambered out and the outside, loaded tire, cambered in, leading to tremendous understeer. They had huge body roll by modern standards, no anti dive or anti squat geometry whatsoever and no car then featured a zero scrub radius front geometry. You need a modern ball joint or MacPherson strut suspension to obtain a zero scrub radius.
Brake discs seldom warp. What is most often misinterpreted as warped brakes are high spots where pad material has plated out on the disc surface after the brakes are heated by a hard stop or repeated hard stops followed by the car standing still with the pads pressed to the disc, such as you would have to do in a car with an automatic gearbox while stopped at a traffic light. The high spots lead to pulsing in the brake pedal (or brake lever on a motorcycle, they have the same problem) which drivers and riders misinterpret as a warped rotor. It is not warped. High spots such as these are cured by wet sanding or honing the rotors to remove built up pad material and sanding the pads to remove the glaze, washing with detergent and water, rinsing with lots of clear water (never allow brake cleaner to touch rotors or pads as it contaminates the pad materials and alters their braking properties), and paying attention to correct bedding in procedures afterwards. Disc brake rotors seldom warp unless they are worn beyond their service limit.
Read and learn:
http://www.mossmotors.com/SiteGraphics/Pages/brake_discs.html
Sandro Galfer, the Pres of Galfer USA and the grandson of the founder of Galfer brakes is the person who first explained this to me.
Brake discs seldom warp. What is most often misinterpreted as warped brakes are high spots where pad material has plated out on the disc surface after the brakes are heated by a hard stop or repeated hard stops followed by the car standing still with the pads pressed to the disc, such as you would have to do in a car with an automatic gearbox while stopped at a traffic light. The high spots lead to pulsing in the brake pedal (or brake lever on a motorcycle, they have the same problem) which drivers and riders misinterpret as a warped rotor. It is not warped. High spots such as these are cured by wet sanding or honing the rotors to remove built up pad material and sanding the pads to remove the glaze, washing with detergent and water, rinsing with lots of clear water (never allow brake cleaner to touch rotors or pads as it contaminates the pad materials and alters their braking properties), and paying attention to correct bedding in procedures afterwards. Disc brake rotors seldom warp unless they are worn beyond their service limit.
Read and learn:
http://www.mossmotors.com/SiteGraphics/Pages/brake_discs.html
Sandro Galfer, the Pres of Galfer USA and the grandson of the founder of Galfer brakes is the person who first explained this to me.
Torsion Bar
Chrysler products DID HAVE ball joints, and the torsion bars are the reason they did handle, GM stuff wallowed, but I see it is no use to argue about it with you, you ,like the automobile manufacturers, think all cars should be stiff, rough riding, have power steering and brakes that halfway work...everyone doesent like to drive a sports car, its not a real luxury car to me unless it is totally isolated from the road...to each his own!
Chrysler products DID HAVE ball joints, and the torsion bars are the reason they did handle, GM stuff wallowed, but I see it is no use to argue about it with you, you ,like the automobile manufacturers, think all cars should be stiff, rough riding, have power steering and brakes that halfway work...everyone doesent like to drive a sports car, its not a real luxury car to me unless it is totally isolated from the road...to each his own!
DesertTortoise
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,189
The 300C had a kingpin front suspension and live axle rear suspension not all that much different than what I had on my Plymouth. I have pushed cars like that until the wheels flexed under cornering loads to the point of jettisoning hubcaps. I vividly remember one popping off the right front on Sepulveda Pass one day on a hoon and watching that big stainless steel hub cap almost hit a Mercedes Benz that was nosing out of a side street looking for an opportunity to make a left turn. I dialed it back a notch after that day.
Here are the sorts of parts you need to make an old car from the 1950s and 1960s handle well.
http://www.hotchkis.net/dodge_b_e_body_geometry_corrected_tubular_upper_aarms.html
Even with the old torsion bar suspension the geometry was not modern. They still had positive camber gain, which prevents the tire from being perpendicular to the pavement when the car rolls in a corner, limiting how much traction and cornering force you can generate, and they had excessive caster gain. They were better in some ways than some GM products because GMs had soft bushings and needed a Panhard rod or Watts Link to control rear axle side to side movement on their coil spring rear suspensions (if you exited a driveway diagonally you could feel the rear of the car moving side to side from bushing flex), but a mid 1970's Chevy Nova will spank a same year Plymouth Valiant or Dodge Dart for handling because by then GM had a better front steering geometry (same front end Camaros and Firebirds were using on pretty much the same front subframe) and GM was by then using a single leaf rear leaf spring so there was no sliding friction between leaves as you had with Chrysler products of that era. It was still a live axle on leaf springs but it was the best developed leaf spring suspension on the market.
A big shortcoming of torsion bars as a spring is that you cannot build in a progressive spring rate as you can with a coil spring. You are stuck with a straight rate spring. It does, however, minimize unsprung weight and is easy to package. I think it was more marketing that good engineering however. Coils give the suspension tuner far more options.
Btw, if you build a car with enough body stiffness, it doesn't need to be sprung hard. This is why Mercedes Benzs and BMWs of that era could have a creamy smooth ride and still handle so well. A big S class rides as softly as a Buick, but Mercedes had vastly superior suspension geometry at both ends and their bodies were so rigid they could use soft springs and still have excellent control. With most American cars of the era, their bodies flexed so badly under cornering loads (push an early 1970's Corvette on some bumpy corners to see what I mean, every body panel is flapping around, the ladder frame is twisting like Gumby and it is real work to hit your cornering line precisely but any body on frame car has problems when you push them hard in corners) the suspension mounting points were moving relative to each other making steering precision impossible. On old Cameros and Firebirds the firewall was not stiff enough for the front subframe and if you pushed them hard enough in corners you would crack the windshield. US car bodies were uniformly weak. Our engineers didn't know how to build a torsionally stiff body. To compensate, high performance American cars tended towards very hard suspensions to limit suspension travel under cornering loads. In effect, body flex became part of the springing of the car. Most US cars tended to be floaty boats that never threatened to flex the body, their limp suspensions led to loss of traction before they generated loads sufficient to flex the body.
Chryslers of the sixties had less body flex than most Ford or GM products of that era and thus had a bit better controlled suspensions but they still lacked a modern front steering geometry and still had miserable leaf spring rear suspensions. Drive a BMW hard on a bumpy road and drive 70's Chrysler product on the same road and see what I mean. But the BMW will still pamper you with a soft ride.
Here are the sorts of parts you need to make an old car from the 1950s and 1960s handle well.
http://www.hotchkis.net/dodge_b_e_body_geometry_corrected_tubular_upper_aarms.html
Even with the old torsion bar suspension the geometry was not modern. They still had positive camber gain, which prevents the tire from being perpendicular to the pavement when the car rolls in a corner, limiting how much traction and cornering force you can generate, and they had excessive caster gain. They were better in some ways than some GM products because GMs had soft bushings and needed a Panhard rod or Watts Link to control rear axle side to side movement on their coil spring rear suspensions (if you exited a driveway diagonally you could feel the rear of the car moving side to side from bushing flex), but a mid 1970's Chevy Nova will spank a same year Plymouth Valiant or Dodge Dart for handling because by then GM had a better front steering geometry (same front end Camaros and Firebirds were using on pretty much the same front subframe) and GM was by then using a single leaf rear leaf spring so there was no sliding friction between leaves as you had with Chrysler products of that era. It was still a live axle on leaf springs but it was the best developed leaf spring suspension on the market.
A big shortcoming of torsion bars as a spring is that you cannot build in a progressive spring rate as you can with a coil spring. You are stuck with a straight rate spring. It does, however, minimize unsprung weight and is easy to package. I think it was more marketing that good engineering however. Coils give the suspension tuner far more options.
Btw, if you build a car with enough body stiffness, it doesn't need to be sprung hard. This is why Mercedes Benzs and BMWs of that era could have a creamy smooth ride and still handle so well. A big S class rides as softly as a Buick, but Mercedes had vastly superior suspension geometry at both ends and their bodies were so rigid they could use soft springs and still have excellent control. With most American cars of the era, their bodies flexed so badly under cornering loads (push an early 1970's Corvette on some bumpy corners to see what I mean, every body panel is flapping around, the ladder frame is twisting like Gumby and it is real work to hit your cornering line precisely but any body on frame car has problems when you push them hard in corners) the suspension mounting points were moving relative to each other making steering precision impossible. On old Cameros and Firebirds the firewall was not stiff enough for the front subframe and if you pushed them hard enough in corners you would crack the windshield. US car bodies were uniformly weak. Our engineers didn't know how to build a torsionally stiff body. To compensate, high performance American cars tended towards very hard suspensions to limit suspension travel under cornering loads. In effect, body flex became part of the springing of the car. Most US cars tended to be floaty boats that never threatened to flex the body, their limp suspensions led to loss of traction before they generated loads sufficient to flex the body.
Chryslers of the sixties had less body flex than most Ford or GM products of that era and thus had a bit better controlled suspensions but they still lacked a modern front steering geometry and still had miserable leaf spring rear suspensions. Drive a BMW hard on a bumpy road and drive 70's Chrysler product on the same road and see what I mean. But the BMW will still pamper you with a soft ride.
super-sweeper
Well-known member
If there's anything The Twilight Zone has taught me, it's that old cars were BEAUTIFUL, and handled well!
of course, I've never driven one.....but that's going to change soon enough!
Just because a car handles well on black-and-white television doesn't mean it was a joy to drive! but The Twilight Zone's job isn't to lie about products, that's Dyson's job!
of course, I've never driven one.....but that's going to change soon enough!
Just because a car handles well on black-and-white television doesn't mean it was a joy to drive! but The Twilight Zone's job isn't to lie about products, that's Dyson's job!
hydralique
Well-known member
Chrysler did offer a factory four speed manual transmission in the 300 for at least 1960. Only a handful were built, it was a very special order trans made by Pont-a-Mousson in France. IIRC it was based on an old Ford of France truck transmission. These were optional in the hyper-expensive Facel Vegas, which were produced in Paris from ‘54 to ‘64 in a variety of models including a rare four door hardtop (the Excellence). All the big Facels had TOL Chrysler V8s and most had the Powerflite or later Torqueflite but the Pont-a-Mousson was there for those who preferred a manual. Offering it on the 300 was an easy way for Chrysler to have a four speed manual without spending much at all in development costs since it was readily available and bolted right up to the 413.
About twenty years ago I knew a very nice couple who had a mouth-watering collection of old Chryslers, including a ‘55 or ‘56 Imperial and a ‘57 300. The cars were in excellent shape as they only bought really nice stuff and then took care to remedy any problems. One of them told me a story of taking the Imperial and 300 out to a storage facility in the desert. He was driving the Imperial, following his partner who was in the 300. It was on a clear day with almost no one else on a dead straight rural highway when an idiot in a late ‘80s Corvette came up behind them, passed and rudely cut close in front of the 300. This really ticked off the 300 driver who reacted by flooring the pedal. He knew perfectly well that the then fairly late model Corvette was a faster car but correctly assumed the driver was just a prick and wouldn’t have the balls to actually outrun the 300. Soon they were out of sight of the Imperial but he later told his partner that the ‘Vette driver accelerated to 120 and then refused to go faster. He sat on the guy’s tail for a few moments and then let him go in deference to the age of the 300 - it was not far from forty years old at the time. I’ve often thought of how the Corvette driver must have felt looking at that huge chrome grille filling his rear view mirror!
I believe that was the fastest these guys ever got their 300 up to, they said it had a little left though I wouldn’t believe 150 without a lot of special prep, some aerodynamic tweaks and a very tall rear end ratio. Jensen used high performance Chrysler big blocks for many years in the CV-8 and then the Interceptor. I have a Motor test of a high compression triple carburetor 440 powered Interceptor from the early ‘70s. With a Torqueflite they got 140 out of that car which has a much smaller frontal area and weighs less than an old 300. While a 392 hemi is a far more interesting engine than the hi-po 440 I’m sure the latter makes more power; it is basically an enlarged version of the 413 which replaced the 392 and offered comparable performance.
By most accounts the early 300s were exceptional American GT cars for their day and huge size but once the ‘60s dawned Chrysler lost interest fast. Lynn Townsend became head of Chrysler in ‘61 and wanted nothing more than to follow the lead of GM and Ford and not spend any extra money on engineering and technical innovations. He ran the company like an accountant and not like someone who cared about how the cars drove, this was the start of a long downhill slide for advanced engineering and unique features at Chrysler. One casualty was the Bendix electronic fuel injection. I’ve read various figures for how many injected cars actually rolled out of the Chrysler factory in ‘58 but 35 seems to be the consensus, including all divisions. Almost all of those 35 cars were retrofitted with carburetors, only a couple of Bendix injected cars remain today. The system just didn’t work in service, unlike GM’s mechanical Rochester injection used for years on Corvettes or the more sophisticated Bosch mechanical system used on TOL Mercedes-Benzes. Instead of working with Bendix to sort the system out Chrysler dropped it like a hot potato and Bendix sold the patents to Bosch. Without question, Bosch made the world’s best and most advanced mechanical injection system but they realized that even if the Bendix electronic system had been a disaster it would be the next generation in fuel injection. They spent most of the ‘60s developing it into D-Jetronic, a fairly reliable, workable system that went into production for ‘68. All modern engine management systems trace their lineage in some way back to that.
About twenty years ago I knew a very nice couple who had a mouth-watering collection of old Chryslers, including a ‘55 or ‘56 Imperial and a ‘57 300. The cars were in excellent shape as they only bought really nice stuff and then took care to remedy any problems. One of them told me a story of taking the Imperial and 300 out to a storage facility in the desert. He was driving the Imperial, following his partner who was in the 300. It was on a clear day with almost no one else on a dead straight rural highway when an idiot in a late ‘80s Corvette came up behind them, passed and rudely cut close in front of the 300. This really ticked off the 300 driver who reacted by flooring the pedal. He knew perfectly well that the then fairly late model Corvette was a faster car but correctly assumed the driver was just a prick and wouldn’t have the balls to actually outrun the 300. Soon they were out of sight of the Imperial but he later told his partner that the ‘Vette driver accelerated to 120 and then refused to go faster. He sat on the guy’s tail for a few moments and then let him go in deference to the age of the 300 - it was not far from forty years old at the time. I’ve often thought of how the Corvette driver must have felt looking at that huge chrome grille filling his rear view mirror!
I believe that was the fastest these guys ever got their 300 up to, they said it had a little left though I wouldn’t believe 150 without a lot of special prep, some aerodynamic tweaks and a very tall rear end ratio. Jensen used high performance Chrysler big blocks for many years in the CV-8 and then the Interceptor. I have a Motor test of a high compression triple carburetor 440 powered Interceptor from the early ‘70s. With a Torqueflite they got 140 out of that car which has a much smaller frontal area and weighs less than an old 300. While a 392 hemi is a far more interesting engine than the hi-po 440 I’m sure the latter makes more power; it is basically an enlarged version of the 413 which replaced the 392 and offered comparable performance.
By most accounts the early 300s were exceptional American GT cars for their day and huge size but once the ‘60s dawned Chrysler lost interest fast. Lynn Townsend became head of Chrysler in ‘61 and wanted nothing more than to follow the lead of GM and Ford and not spend any extra money on engineering and technical innovations. He ran the company like an accountant and not like someone who cared about how the cars drove, this was the start of a long downhill slide for advanced engineering and unique features at Chrysler. One casualty was the Bendix electronic fuel injection. I’ve read various figures for how many injected cars actually rolled out of the Chrysler factory in ‘58 but 35 seems to be the consensus, including all divisions. Almost all of those 35 cars were retrofitted with carburetors, only a couple of Bendix injected cars remain today. The system just didn’t work in service, unlike GM’s mechanical Rochester injection used for years on Corvettes or the more sophisticated Bosch mechanical system used on TOL Mercedes-Benzes. Instead of working with Bendix to sort the system out Chrysler dropped it like a hot potato and Bendix sold the patents to Bosch. Without question, Bosch made the world’s best and most advanced mechanical injection system but they realized that even if the Bendix electronic system had been a disaster it would be the next generation in fuel injection. They spent most of the ‘60s developing it into D-Jetronic, a fairly reliable, workable system that went into production for ‘68. All modern engine management systems trace their lineage in some way back to that.
I think I'll still love the old cars
drive my little Chevy, and leave all the butch, mechanical stuff to ye. It all sounds so "technical". I'm still on "bagged or bagless"!!
drive my little Chevy, and leave all the butch, mechanical stuff to ye. It all sounds so "technical". I'm still on "bagged or bagless"!!
You have to admit:
those big old cars are beautiful works of art. But, not everyone WANTS one. Like houses. People love mine, Well (some). But they'd never want it in a million years. I admire those big cars, beam w/ pride at the designs. Would I want that maintenance or responsibility? No. I'll just admire yours. And, I DO!
those big old cars are beautiful works of art. But, not everyone WANTS one. Like houses. People love mine, Well (some). But they'd never want it in a million years. I admire those big cars, beam w/ pride at the designs. Would I want that maintenance or responsibility? No. I'll just admire yours. And, I DO!
The main reason..
I DONT drive vintage stuff, is ,,MONEY!, when I drove them , 1 I could buy a good old car for very little, I bought a 1 owner 62 Plymouth Fury with 55000 miles in 95 for 1750.00, and drove it several years with nothing more than a tune up, but now with gas as silly as it is, plus the fact , then I had a great affordable mechanic who could fix what I couldnt, he is gone now, and a similar car now would be 5000.00 or more...but if I was to win a lottery...LOL, I would be driving something with fins and pushbuttons, I believe one of our members here drives a Packard for his everyday car!!!
I DONT drive vintage stuff, is ,,MONEY!, when I drove them , 1 I could buy a good old car for very little, I bought a 1 owner 62 Plymouth Fury with 55000 miles in 95 for 1750.00, and drove it several years with nothing more than a tune up, but now with gas as silly as it is, plus the fact , then I had a great affordable mechanic who could fix what I couldnt, he is gone now, and a similar car now would be 5000.00 or more...but if I was to win a lottery...LOL, I would be driving something with fins and pushbuttons, I believe one of our members here drives a Packard for his everyday car!!!
DesertTortoise
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,189
Kenkart, your video is interesting but says absolutely nothing about the geometry shortcomings of Chrysler products all the way through the 1980's and beyond. 1955/56 Chrysler 300s like the car depicted were old fashioned kingpin front suspensions, and the later torsion bar suspensions had too much caster gain and positive camber gain, both of which are now understood to be very poor geometry choices for optimum handling and steering response.
Kenkart, I used to entertain the same delusions as you do, but fukking around with that old iron taught me some lessons. You can't make those old cars handle like new ones unless you are ready to replace both upper and lower control arms with modern aftermarket parts that give you a modern steering geometry, and you are willing to do some expensive modifications to the rear to replace the leaf spring rear suspension with an independent multi link set up. You also need to replace the single reservoir master cylinder brake system with a dual diagonally split system using modern discs and calipers. People do this, the parts are out there, but it gets expensive in a hurry. But please don't try to tell me that a 1950s or 1960s anything handles as good as dozens of modern cars, many of which are quite reasonably priced, do today. You can go buy a used Chrysler 300 off a used car lot today that, out of the box in used condition, will handle and brake better than that old 300C will after spending many tens of thousands of dollars on aftermarket parts to make it handle.
And unless you have instrumented tests of stock Chrysler 300s from the 1950s and 1960s doing 140 mph plus (when it required the CHP to make major mods to a 1978 440 Dodge to obtain that kind of top speed) all you are doing is telling sea stories. Without data it is nothing more than heresay. Put up some hard data, not stories. I put up the data, not heresay, but data of the flying mile for one of those cars fettled by the Chrysler race team for the purpose and it didn't even get to 128 mph. I also showed you what it took to get one of those cars to break 140 mph, and it included non standard transmissions, gearing, manual steering, ditching the AC, the air cleaner and the whole exhaust system, plus aerodynamic mods. When you tell me so and so took a stock 300 or Imperial out on desert highway and ran with a late model Corvette all I can do is throw the BS flag.
Hydraulique:
The four speed manual was offered so Chrysler could use them in NASCAR. The automatic cost about 5 mph off the top speed and was not durable enough for racing, so Chrysler had to offer a manual to the public in order to be able to use one in their race cars. I am not aware they ever actually sold more than four or five cars to the public with that transmission.
Kenkart, I used to entertain the same delusions as you do, but fukking around with that old iron taught me some lessons. You can't make those old cars handle like new ones unless you are ready to replace both upper and lower control arms with modern aftermarket parts that give you a modern steering geometry, and you are willing to do some expensive modifications to the rear to replace the leaf spring rear suspension with an independent multi link set up. You also need to replace the single reservoir master cylinder brake system with a dual diagonally split system using modern discs and calipers. People do this, the parts are out there, but it gets expensive in a hurry. But please don't try to tell me that a 1950s or 1960s anything handles as good as dozens of modern cars, many of which are quite reasonably priced, do today. You can go buy a used Chrysler 300 off a used car lot today that, out of the box in used condition, will handle and brake better than that old 300C will after spending many tens of thousands of dollars on aftermarket parts to make it handle.
And unless you have instrumented tests of stock Chrysler 300s from the 1950s and 1960s doing 140 mph plus (when it required the CHP to make major mods to a 1978 440 Dodge to obtain that kind of top speed) all you are doing is telling sea stories. Without data it is nothing more than heresay. Put up some hard data, not stories. I put up the data, not heresay, but data of the flying mile for one of those cars fettled by the Chrysler race team for the purpose and it didn't even get to 128 mph. I also showed you what it took to get one of those cars to break 140 mph, and it included non standard transmissions, gearing, manual steering, ditching the AC, the air cleaner and the whole exhaust system, plus aerodynamic mods. When you tell me so and so took a stock 300 or Imperial out on desert highway and ran with a late model Corvette all I can do is throw the BS flag.
Hydraulique:
The four speed manual was offered so Chrysler could use them in NASCAR. The automatic cost about 5 mph off the top speed and was not durable enough for racing, so Chrysler had to offer a manual to the public in order to be able to use one in their race cars. I am not aware they ever actually sold more than four or five cars to the public with that transmission.
