O Scale Motor Vehicle Chronicle Nov.14

That Berliet sure looks like a 1938 mid price GM car from the front. (definitely looks French in the back)  Alco, I think, also later built ALCO cars, large, if not monster, automobiles, but I do not know the years, I think circa 1910-1915. I do not know if

Baldwin ever built cars, but have not heard of any.   I am hoping to eventually pick up a discounted 1937 Graham for my scratchbuilt 1940 Graham dealership.  This is a

second Graham (other 1941..indistinguishable from 1940) Brooklin has made.  They

have made one Hupp (Hupmobile) of that period. If they make a '34-'36 Hupp, I am

ready to pounce on one.

Man, I can certainly see the appeal of collecting diecast autos.  If I weren't heavily into trains, I'd probably go that way; those examples you provided look beautiful.  Thanks!

I'm interested in the supercharged Grahams.  Were they considered hihg-performance cars at the time or did Graham supercharge them because it did not have larger/more powerful motors so it could compete with others?  I know they had their own design and did a lot of SC'd cars but I don't know much about them.  I have ordered the Graham, regardless, it seems pretty interesting. 

One of our recent York Meet purchases, a 1958 Buick Special Convertible. Beautiful model.

Bought from 3000Toys.

Again, really neat stuff, Richard.  Appreciate your research that you do.  Are those car models pictured part of your own collection?

That Terraplane convertible rings a bell with me.  the  very first car that I have any memory of was my Dad's 1933 Terraplane convertible, or as my Dad called it: a Cabriolet.  About the only thing that I can actually remember is standing in the middle of the front seat, between my Mom and Dad.  No seat belts, of course, in those days.  If you were in an accident you just flew through the windshield.

Didn't Graham use the former Cord dies in the late 1930's?  Seems to me that I recall seeing them as a re-issue but with conventional rear wheel drive.   The one you pictured is listed as a 1937 model and, of course, Cord was still producing the 810 and then the 812 series so if Graham did use Cord bodies, it would have been after the last of the Cord's were made.

CO HI commented about that French Berliot sedan.  To me it looks a lot like a '38 Buick but with fender skirts.  Wonder what kind of a motor they put in them?

Thanx again for your presentation.

Paul Fischer

I am not an authority on Graham, but am interested in all the orphan American makes.

Hupp and Graham were two that survived, barely, the Depression.  The ACD cars,

(Auburn, Cord, Duesenberg) were getting publicity from being supercharged, and did

not survive as long as Graham!.   I think it was an attempt to coat-tail on that.

Graham in the 1932-34 period had stylish cars, but with a depressed economy, few

car buyers were taking any risks. I have seen few '30's Grahams in shows, guess few were sold and survived.  I think they had dropped their eight earlier, did not have the funds to tool up a larger engine, and were trying to gain buyers, or at least attention,  by "hopping up" their six.   I think the current rash of turbochargers is based on the

same performance while preserving economy idea. I don't know if "Special Interest Auto" magazine, which did test drives on vintage cars, ever did one on a Graham,  I have doubts the Graham SC was much of a performance booster.

Those are some nice looking cars! It would be easy to run up a huge cc bill buying all the die-cast cars out there.

You don't even have to buy all of them to really over-do the cc bill!

When I went to buy the graham today, I could not resist this really nice looking '36 buick coupe.  Every time I look at diecast sites, I find something I just have to have.

Well, I am definitely not a current 1:1 Buick fan, but they were fairly (not Chevrolet common) common to American roads, so I have a '34 coupe and a '39 sedan on my model streets.  If they make a 1940 one, I will be interested.  I looked at a base

model 1940 coupe (1:1) in the auction closeout of a kind of amateur museum, and I think those were built on the same frames, using the same bodies( Chevrolet)as some of the smaller GM makes of the time.  They used a straight 8 like their heavier cars, but not sure it was as large an engine.  There was a Buick of the period with dual carburetors, that I would hope used the same lighter body but do not know.

As far as I know the only '40 Buick available new from Brooklin right now is the model 59 Station Wagon.  

I've driven a few of the supercharged offerings of the '30's and the peppy performance over a naturally aspirated twin is noticable.  I doubt economy was as much the goal as was HP increase.  In fact gas mileage went down when adding an SC.  Economy was lost to the friction of moving parts that robbed power from the engine

A turbocharger can manage to squeeze out better economy but usually not more than

the comparable Fuel Injected only model.  The downside is that with turbocharging comes the need for premium fuel.  My little turbocharged 1.6L Nissan needs the good stuff and gulps it too fast for my liking...but then I am a bit heavy on the peddle.

Bruce

CO HI:  Buick's history during the late 1930's, early '40's, was quite interesting.  They did have two basic engine blocks that were used in at least two different body sizes.  In about the mid 30's they introduced the Roadmaster  (which we irreverently called the Road ******* or the Road Smasher)   That car used the "C" body which GM reserved for Cadillacs, large Buicks and large Oldsmobiles (98's)  The "B" body, which was shared with Chevy, Pontiac, smaller Olds and smaller Buicks,  became the basis for the Buick Special (and one more very special car), also the Olds 88 and 76, etc.  That larger "C" body was also used for the Buick Super, which had the smaller engine. 

Since about 1932, all Buicks were straight eights but one was smaller, I don't recall the exact engine size but the displacement was around 248 cu in.  The larger block, which was actually physically longer, was about 320 cu in.  Of course the small block was the power not only for the Special, but also the Super in the larger, heavier body.  The big block became the power, not only for the Roadmaster but also for Buick's "Hot Rod", the Century, so named because it was the first production car designed to exceed 100 mph.  This model used the large 320 cu in engine in the smaller "B" body with an extended front clip to fit the longer motor.

Over the years, those engines were improved and HP was cranked up until in 1941, both the Roadmaster and the Century were equipped with dual carburetors and rated at 160HP, more than even Cadillac's flat head V-8.  For their day, those cars were really quick, both in acceleration but also top speed.  But actually the engineers really missed an opportunity to improve performance as well as economy.  (Probably not too important in a day when gas was about $ .15 cents a gallon)  The carburetors were set up to operate progressively, that is, the front carb. fed the gas mixture for 90% of the time, the rear was set up to feed only when you floored the gas pedal.  So for most of the time, the fuel mixture came only from the front carb which was a long way from the last cylinder.  Not a very efficient layout.  If the carbs had operated in tandem, both working at the same time, the efficiency of the whole system would have been much better.

!938 was when Buick introduced it's "torque tube" drive shaft with coil rear springs, an improvement over the flat, leaf springs from earlier.  To me, the most desirable Buick to own, as a collector's car, would be a 1938 Century Convertible with side mount spare tires.  How classy could you get???  And you could beat darn near anything of it's time, short of a Duesenberg or a supercharged Cord.

Paul Fischer

I have had two salemen, of current makes of cars I looked at, recently tell me under the table to avoid the turbos, that the metallurgy installed isn't up to the task.  I had no plans to consider one, as I had driven and liked a rental T-Bird coupe, except for the transmission, and found a T-Bird coupe with a five speed manual.  Ad. said, "Like

new manual T-bird turbo coupe, 25,000 miles, new turbo"  That car had, I think the 2.3 four cylinder engine that was in then current Mustangs and Ranger pickups.  I

did not understand why Ford did not just put their standard V-6 in that car.  That was

as close as I came to considering one.  Fords seems to be making that same mistake

again with the 2015 turbo Mustang four, which I was anxious to look at as a four...

and have and sat in, but... turbo!!?? From what brwebster tells us above, what is the point?  Maybe in Europe where cars are/were? taxed on engine size.....?

I had an '83 Bird with a V6, the last year with a carburetor. a really nice car, but it could not get out of its own way.  I, had 5 cars sinse with fuel injected V6s and most preformed as well as any of my former V8s including a Mustang with a Cleveland 351

I recall the horsepower ratings on those mid '80's Fords.  The 2.3 turbo was 180hp, the V6 was 150hp and the 302 V8....ready for it.....180hp!  The '85 T-Bird with throttle body fuel injection on the 302 was probably no better than the V6 in real performance.  Like Richards V6 I found the V8 in the Bird pitiful, slowing down on grades with more than 2 occupants on board.  It was fortunate that I lived far from any mountains.

Apparently they're squeezing 188 horses out of my Nissan 1.6 turbo these days.  That's hardly shocking by today's standards until you compare with what was produced 20 or 30 years ago.  A totally different world out there now!

Bruce