Ryan submitted a new blog post: The Buick XP-300 Was A Turning Point Continue reading the Original Blog Post
While Buick may have stopped on the test track, their engineering department (especially engine development) didn't. The nailhead D series experimental heads and turbo charging is a good example. Kinda resembles the 55 Bird, doesn't it?
A few thoughts; 1 - I understand the point that Mauri Rose was making but I don't agree with him. This passage in particular struck me, "When I got back to the garage, one of the mechanics reported that I had gone 141 mph on the straight. At no point did I feel like I had gone even into the triple digits. The whole experience made me wonder about the point of it all. Are you going fast if it doesn’t feel like it?” That's bullshit. Speed is speed. It's objectively quantifiable. It's not a seat of the pants feeling. Sure it may feel fast when you take something that shouldn't go fast and make it go much quicker than it ever was intended to. But taking the harrowing nature of the ride out of the equation, the ultimate question is "how fast did you go?" If this were solely a seat of the pants feeling, we'd all be strapping engines to bicycles or skateboards, or Turbonique drag axles to go karts. Instead we're souping up cars. Could you imagine that car hurtling down the straight away at 141 mph in 1951? That's a significant achievement. 2 - I've always considered the Harley Earl era GM concept cars to be among some of the most beautiful cars ever created. This one is no exception. You can see how ahead of the time the styling was. This was 1951. But the headlights are just like the 54 Buick, and the bumper is reminiscent of the 56 Olds. 3 - This article indirectly highlights the dichotomy that still exists in this hobby and has apparently existed since when these cars were new; speed versus style. Mauri Rose opined that the car handled like an "overweight pig". Maybe that's true. But I'd bet if a young man pulled up to a cafe in this car in 1951, he wouldn't have too much difficulty getting a date. Performance and speed is not the paramount objective for many of us. For a lot of us, it's just building something that looks cool. It really, truly begins and ends there. If it runs hard, it's merely a bonus.
Any idea of what engine this had in it? The nailhead V8 was still a couple of years away from being in cars. I love the pedals!
Agree... I happen to be a form is created by function guy though. And I'm mostly passionate about purpose built cars. I think what Mauri is getting at here is that Detroit made a decision in the early 1950's that bigger was better. And to make up for all that weight, more power was better too... and in doing so, other parts of the driving dynamics were ignored and suffered as a result. I do, however, think he was jaded by familiarity. For example... I have a neighbor with a 1957 Mercedes 180 sedan. I admit that it drives, handles and stops better than any American sedan of the era. As a guy that has driven and owned many cars of that era, the Merc feels far more modern and competent. The being said, it also doesn't feel as grand as say a 1957 Ford or Chevy. It feels more like an appliance - void of personality and/or any kind of grandness. It just isn't as special to the senses.
This right here. I've driven plenty of 'fun to drive but boring to look at' cars and I'd like a little of both, but at the end of the day I'll take the looker over the performer. Hopefully they look good and preform decently too. That's probably also why I'll never own a new car. Yeah they perform, but dang they're ugly.
Kinda has a Golden Sahara vibe to it, I think that’s the name of it? The show car…maybe a few Kaiser hints? Pretty cool either way
They were back in '53 with a two seat convert that looked like a Corvette. I can't recall what they named it ( I was 9 in '57, rummaging through a pile of my Uncle's Mechs Ill. Poplr Sci. etc. mags in the basement ) The thing that sticks in my head,was that instead of the side having a cove cutout, they exposed the front tire by having the side of the fender carved away. The curved cutout extended into the beginning of the door. Ala Vette. The fender top was there like any car of the era. There was more sporty Hot Rod touches that I can't tune into. ( wiggle my rabbit ears ) Thanks Ryan.
The interesting part, however, comes when you think about purpose. An every day car built with practicality in mind? Give me a '57 Cadillac over anything made anywhere else in the world in 1957. And when you go down the price ranges, I can pretty much guarantee I'd take the Ford or GM alternative over anything made in Europe at the time. However, lets say you aren't worried about practicality and your purpose it to haul ass on a twisty road or track? I have quite a bit of seat time in both a '57 Corvette and a '57 356 Porsche. I'd take the Porsche every time... It's just a much better car for such a thing... even though the Corvette is a better looking car to my eyes... In the 1950's we were good at making big, comfortable, and flashy cars that ran pretty good in a straight line, but couldn't turn and couldn't stop... I'm okay with that.
Comparing the Corvette to the Porsche is a great comparison that shows how the upper management and then just how different American vs German automakers were at the time. The 356 is built to be a sports car that zips through corners and had a much more "modern" chassis under it. Where really a 57 Corvette (or any C1) is just a beautiful body sitting on a modified 53 Chevy passenger car frame. I love the look of C1s but they were pretty much fancy lipstick on a pig in terms of handling performance. Both are amazing cars, but two completely different trains of thought to get the end result. I can also see Mauri's point of view of not feeling the speed. I mean you see it today with latest muscle cars. I think its part of why Mopar went crazy with all the hellcats. I mean a 425hp 409 Chevy with bias ply feels like a monster when doing 100 mph and rowing the gears and getting no traction. Where I have 455hp in my late model Camaro and its as docile at 115 at the finish line of the quarter mile with no real feeling of being on the edge compared to me driving to work everyday. I drove a Hellcat and that actually made you think about the throttle as you could easily burn them off. You needed that excessive amount of horsepower to make the thing hairy again like the big block cars of the old days.
Brings me to remember some of the godawfully fast cars I've had; big Lincolns and Chryslers and a Buick... (Haven't owned a Cadillac and probably never will, given that the last sky blue POS DeVille was bought by some cop named Jack)... those cars are deceptively fast for their weight and size. Scarily so. And those soft sprung suspensions didn't give you much warning about road conditions...
Mmmmmm a blank check in 1957. Hmmmmm, my purchase would probably start with an F and end in erarri. but if I got to swap paint at the local roundy round, I’ll take the US offerings. big, clumsy, poor handling US road barges. Mmmmmm I’m in. Luv em. Car manufactures focusing more on marketing? Yep. Still does. My students thought my 51 merc was crazy cause it had ash treys. . And a cigarette lighter instead of a power source. The “coke bottle” styling that resembles a feminine shape to add sex appeal to a car design. Tail fins to fit the “jet age” Sitting lower in a bucket seat so a buyer feels “safer” Cup holders everywhere, doo dads and do hickeys to make driving more comfortable. Maybe 1% of buyers would enjoy the beauty of how the road feels through a proper manual steering set up, rowing through gears with just the sound of exhaust and wind.
Harley Earl was the King of flash and gimmicks. GM was in business to sell cars, and in those days GM set the style to a large degree. Yeah, they got caught with their pants down a few times (Virgil Exner, the Ranchero, and the Mustang in the '60s to name three) but by and large they catered to what the American public wanted (after GM told them they wanted it!). It was basically a bean-counter company, but enough car guys (Ed Cole, Zora Arkus-Duntov, John DeLorean, Bill Mitchell to name a few) snuck in the door to make it interesting.
Those big old "canal barges" could definitely deaden your senses. For some reason my dad loaned me his '66 Lincoln for a day trip with my girlfriend (now wife). I was on the Interstate doing 60/65. Next time I look down it's 85 headed for 90. Never felt any difference.
I took a buddy for a ride in my '64 Wildcat, at 90 mph he said "Feels like sitting in lazy-boy recliner that's on a magic carpet" Didn't feel like we were going that fast.
My own favorite GM concept, the Firebird III; but it still needs lowering and a longer bubble top. Also, my brand new '65 Bonneville cruiser.
Had a friend in the Navy who bought a brand new 67 Buick Electra 225 4-door with his re-enlistment bonus. Being a fledgling drag racer and muscle car guy, I never would have even considered owning that land barge. However, I learned to love the beast when six of us took a Christmas vacation trip in the Buick from San Francisco to Dallas, dropping off guys in towns along the way. It was a smooth and quiet cruiser on just about any highway surface, held its own on snow-covered roads through northern Arizona, and got 19 mpg -- close to what the owner had predicted before the trip. That claim had generated lots of laughs before we actually filled the tank several times and did the math. It must have had a very slow turning 430, along with a 2.56 axle ratio. Looks pretty cool to me. It would surely be a head turner cruising around town.
I once read that Edgar Kaiser said" slap a Buick nameplate on it and it will sell like hotcakes". When my great Uncles 55 Manhattan resurfaced last year I spent a lot of time looking at it, and the styling cues were definitely pulled from this car.
Looks like the xp 300 aluminum 215 V8 was way different the BOP 215 V8 of the early 60s. 3.25" bore and stroke, real hemi, crazy high mounted cam shaft. https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/inside-buicks-experimental-laboratory-on-wheels-the-1951-xp-300/
Here’s a screen shot of a post I made a couple years ago, it shows a little more detail. The two carbs are different, one was for gasoline and the other for operation on methanol.
The Jalopy Journal
