O Scale Motor Vehicle Chronicle May 8

Not Canadian but another addition to my 1:53 collection.

I do indeed.  I had one of the Delta 88s with a Chevy 350.  It was obvious when I took delivery and I  not the least upset about it: the Chevy was a good engine (or at least had been prior to '73's emissions restrictions) and high-performance upgrade parts for it were much easier to find and buy and I knew my way around that engine well.  Cars really needed a little extra help at that time.  I put in a stroker kit to just under 400 cid, a new if still fairly mild cam, larger carb, etc., but added no chrome under the hood and removed no emissions equipment.  It drove like a '72 had, still passed inspection and the  car did very well for as long as we had it.

Richard - were Fargo trucks named after Fargo, the town?

While I had other reasons, I think GM and its makes lost a lot of respect when the

engines, all different in the OHV V-8 boom, partially begun by the 1949 Olds and its

successes, became, apparently, the same, across all marque lines.  While I was enraged when my and a parent's new 1977 Cutlasses turned into screaming lemons with the same three failures in both cars, the unique Olds 260 V-8 in each was not the

problem and that part of my car ran on, until an early trade.  I wish the distributor

and other components lived up to the engines.  I am not aware that 260 V-8 was

used in any other GM marque or model, but now I wonder it it was developed out of the country for another market, Australia or ??  I also had previously a Ford Fairlane with a 260 V-8, from, I remember as, 1962.  I drove it well up in miles.

Lee :

I am not sure what or who they are named after. The Fargo Motor Car Company was located in Chicago.

My sister bought a new 77/78 Olds 2 dr coupe based on the Chevy Nova that was fairly 'high-end' with a padded top, buckets, and a console. Evidently it had a Chevy 350 in it and she was compensated by Olds with a modest check I think. Great little car - all silver.

I  had a '79 Olds Cutlas with that 260 V8. It was gutless and somewhat troublesome. It would have been better with a Chevy V8. The car also had a Chevette Turbo Hydromatic 200 Transmission. That never gave me any trouble.

That was the last V8 car I owned, not counting my ancient Studebaker.

For many years General Motors divisions were Mostly autonomous.Each auto division designed and used their own engines and chassis. There are some exceptions for example, LaSalle used Oldsmobile straight eights in some years. GMC inherited Buick 6s and sometimes used Buick straight 8s. Early GMC V8s were Pontiacs. GM's Hydromatic was developed by Oldsmobile and later became a separate division. In 1954 the Hydromatic Plant was destroyed by fire. and some Oldsmobiles used a Buick Dynaflow transmission and Pontiac used a Chevrolet Powerglide.

I had a NOVA sedan my wife drove about thirty miles on the highway each way to where she taught school - forget which year in was - sometime in the mid to late 70s, that had a 260 V8 - a Chevy small block and rated and something like 110 HP.  It was worse than anemic  Smooth and quiet, but just no power at all.  But as with the Delta 88 and its 350 "Chevy" engine, one small block looks like another under all that emissions plumbing, and you could pass emissions tests easily even if you had raised the compression and such if you didn't get too aggressive and kept the car well-tuned.  We put a used/rebuilt 327 in there - I was raising kids, money was tight -  with a slightly larger 2-bbl carb, again used - and  just left it cosmetically as we'd bought it, and a bit grimy, too, nothing that would get attention if looked at.  That NOVA was never a great car - it still did not have a lot of power like the 400 cid Delta "chevy" did, but it was a lot better and my wife liked the way it drove on the highway. 

My dad revered Charles Kettering - GM's Chief of R&D.  I think my Dad had met him and even had a course or two in mech engr from him in college or something.  That's why he was an Oldsmobile man: always said Olds and Cadillac had the best engines because of some of Kettering's patents/invention.  Not sure why, but he never liked Buick & Pontiac as much.  He admitted the Chevy small block, which became my favorite even in high school, was a good engine, but thought it was too lightweight for real heavy duty.  He did admit it was a great "hot rod"engine for that reason, and he liked to drive my 327 Camaro alot. 

Another fire, a 1933 one in the Cadillac engine plant, forced the use of modified

Olds straight eights in LaSalles for 1934-36.  LaSalle then became a test base

for more modern styling, "turret top", etc., which may have reduced sales losses,

or perhaps was unnoticeable in the the depth of the Depression.

I had already started downsizing engines in 1973, going down to a 318 from a 383,

due to a job change and long drives.  So the 260 was also my last V-8, in 1977, chosen

because of gas price escalation and smog laws attacking performance.  I liked the

styling on '76 and '77 Olds, but mechanically, it was a really bad choice.  I HEARD they

were using Vega five speeds in them, which both our cars had, and first gear retainer

went out of both, the distributor had a problem in both, and the clutch linkage failed,

breaking or a weld failing, I forget which,  in both.  All of this happening very soon after purchase on one, later on mine.  I did like the engine, but with no trust, I traded sooner than planned, and have been leery of the company ever since.  With gas prices up, my interest in performance was down and I just wanted fuel efficient fours that would stay together. (I did not get those at first, either, with AMC Spirits)

Richard,

I enjoy your listing of 'CLASSIC' 'AUTOMOBILES,' which are from an era when 'Automobiles' were 'Automobiles' a thing of beauty, elegance, comfort a pleasure to be seen in, drive and that would normally last about fifteen, to twenty years.

NOT, like most vehicles of today which look like a box, or a dinosaur and that one can go from 0 to 100 m.p.h. in one second flat, which are the most causes of crashes and that most of the newer vehicles only last a good five, to eight years!!!!!

Ralph

That was the Olds Omega.  I remember my buddy buying one new in 1975 and AFAIK when introduced in 1973 they were already using the Chevy 350.  We were used to the engine swaps so common on GM products in Canada that the whole 350 debacle seemed silly to us. 

Every Friday I look forward to your posting.In the late 1960's there was a man in town who drove a 1961Plymouth but, it had the front end sheet metal of a1961 Dodge.Its been many years since i saw that combination it could have also been the other way around.I wonder if the car was in a accident and they replaced the sheet metal with the other make or was it a Canadian made car

For comparison, A Canadian built '55 Pontiac on top and

the larger US built '55 Pontiac below

Nice comparison!  Really interesting to study them.  Greenhouse looks nearly identical.  I suppose back then you would want the larger, longer car, but today I'd want the lighter

.  

Smokey Yunick built a 7/8ths Chevelle once to race in NASCAR. Maybe his Chevelle was from Canada??? 

Thanks for this info this week.

I don't remember the 1955 or that 1955 Pontiac at all....my family, and it seemed like

every kid I knew, because of the new V-8, was Chevolet-oriented.  As noted, I, Lee,

and engine-swappers would have much preferred the Canadian version.  They were

coupes, too!!   Ah, the good old days.  I still wanta know the history of that Olds 260,

which I last saw in a new '78 Cutlass at a rural Indiana dealer.  I suspect progressive, mandated,  smog garbage hung all over them had all qualities going further south.

First of all, Smokey Yunick was one very cool guy.  He is probably responsible for more new rules added to NASCAR's rulebook than anyone else in history.  His 7/8's size Chevelle, his giant diameter fuel line, and his other "creative" interpretations of rules make him my hero.  Plus, he built dang fine race cars.

I did a little research. I was unaware that GMm had two tiny, anemic V8s during that period. Only GM of the 1970s would do something that stupid.  I had the 262 cid Chevy small block in my NOVA.  I had always assumed it was the same as the 260 V8 in the Olds, etc., but wikipedia says no, that the Olds engine (also used in some other Gm cars) was a 260 cid version of another GM block.  

My wife did have the 307 V8 in a Pontiac we got several years later.  appartly that was a close relative of the 260, just with a longer stroke.  That was the worse car we ever owned.  At 60,000 miles, it was running poorly, and only on 7 cylinders because it wore the lobes off the non-face-hardened cam GM used on it because it had such "mild valve timing and lift it did not need a hard camshaft."  Gm offered to pay half the cost of installing a new cam, but I hated the car and realized the cam lobs, now very fine particles, were still inside the engine, just not were they should be, and that meant the engine was shot, so I sold it for parts and bought a Ford next time. 

Lee,

  The greenhouse is identical.   Chevrolet, Pontiac and Oldsmobile utilized the same basic inner structure then added their own unique inner and outer sheet metal to suit.  Of course each company also had their own unique drive lines and chassis' that magically fit that standard GM inner structure.  It was that type of flexibility in GM design that allowed us Canucks to develop our own Pontiac.

I've owned a '56 Laurentian and '57 Laurentian in the past and a close study reveals a massive amount of unique stampings needed to transfer a Pontiac body onto a Chevy chassis.  Even with identical inner structures the CDN Pontiac ended up being narrower, front and rear.  That meant narrower bumpers among the other size reductions.  The pictured Laurentian above is missing it's skirts and accompanying lower trim  BTW, interior materials and patterns duplicated those from the US.  The dash board was pure Pontiac so what fit the US car also fit the Canuck inside.  Wheel discs and hubcaps, normally made from stainless steel, were chrome plated steel on our GM products.

Drive lines followed Chevy production where the V8 was concerned.  You could have ordered a '57 with fuel injection or a 2 X 4 setup.  6 cylinder engines were 261 cu.in., from '55 onward, rather than using the Chevy car 235.  That meant a discrepancy of only 4 cu.in. in 1955 between the 6 and V8.  Where applicable you could order overdrive or limited slip differential, ala Chevy.

Anyone who has driven a '55 to '57 Chevy pretty much understands how a CDN Pontiac performs.  Compared to an American Pontiac they are day and night...one taut and nimble with sparkling performance, the other a decidedly mushy boulevard cruiser.  Just my opinion, but I bet any trace of nostalgia would wear off pretty quick if those used to driving today's cars took a full sized American Pontiac for a spin.  Even the sure footed for it's day Chevy might send test pilots screaming to Ralph Nader over charges of Unsafe At Any Speed.  But then, that's another car dear to my heart...maybe for another Chronicle.

Bruce

My ponderous 1960 Chevy, on its 14" may-pops, was the one and only car that I drove

well into 3 figures, burying the speedometer.  As "Bruce" suggests, with some recent cars I have had, that would corner and handle, I have serious doubts I would want to exceed, if even reach, the speed limit in it today.  While I have not driven one since

1966, when I traded, I feel like it would waddle like a duck.

A few years ago I made a terrible mistake.  I bought a '53 Cadillac Coupe DeVille.   I had it painted and trimmed just like my grandfather's first Caddy, which at the time, 1953, was the most wonderous thing I had ever seen.  

It was a truly terrible car, even with a modern 350 crate engine and transmission, modern AC, and alternator.  It handled like a drunken pig, pulled and twisted a bit under hard braking, which was hardly up to even modest modern standards of stopping distance, and didn't ride that well, either.  I have to admit it was quiet, though.  It was '50s ugly and very nostaglic, but it was just a terrible, terrible car to drive.  i was so happy when we finally sold it. 

Lee; Been there, done that with my 1950 Plymouth. An exact duplicate of my 1st. car in 1962. I have a 1:87 1950 black Dodge on the layout which looks pretty close to the Plymouth.

Old cars are a lot of fun, as long as its not your daily driver. They drive like  old trucks and if you had to drive one to work every day, you probably end up hating your job.

They don't make like the used to, and its a good thing.

I agree.  I love old cars, all of them have appeal, rat rods and unrestored survivors, the 100-point glamour exotics, to my favorit type: nicely restored or cared for normal cars from long, long ago - I love a nice '54 Plymouth or Ford sedan, etc., and I still remember a pristine '65 base Mustang (small six, three on the floor, hubcaps, rubber mats - I saw at a auto show last year.  It was soooo cool.  

My own problem is I have nowhere nice and convenient to put old cars.  I have a three old sports cars tucked away in warehouse/garages that two of my boys own: I get to see them about once or twice a year and we never work on them because it is so inconvenient to get to them.  If I had a big garage here at the house I'd probably own at least two or three old cars - and that's precisely why I haven't added a big garage.  I think I am better off without another source of insanity in my life.  

cars of the 50's and 60's were never meant to handle they were sold under the adage of luxury ride. they were softly sprung had narrow wheels and tires and of course non radial tires under them which added to the problem. these cars can be made to handle with the proper suspension upgrades, wider wheels and radial tires and of course adding disc brakes to make them stop properly is necessary as well. the late 60's muscle cars can be made to handle as well as C5 and C6 Corvettes pulling over 1g on a skid pad.

my son built a 70 chevelle powered by a 540 Big Block with air ride strong arm suspension and it handles almost as well as my Z51 vette.

While cost and finding parts is now a big factor, when neither once were (parts for some cars, such as the Model A Ford have been reproduced, until, I think with it,

you just need a frame and a bare block, and a lot of cash flow) and can build up from there.  A lot of parts are being remade for popular cars like the '55-'57 Chevies also.  STORAGE has always been the largest pain in owning a collector car.  Parts now for anything remotely less common, are  both expensive and hard (impossible?)to find.  A friend paid $600 apiece to have six hubcaps duplicated for his 1928 roadster.  (he has cleaned up on trophies, though)