Technical Old cars: Cool design vs. ACTUALLY DRIVING THEM...

My friend, about 10 years ago, bought a 52 Chevy truck, with a 235, open drive rear end, and a 4 speed manual transmission. On take off, from a dead stop, it felt like the transmission was in 4th gear. After it would hit 40 m.p.h., then it would start to pick up speed and my friend used to brag about how the truck could do 70 m.p.h on the freeway.

 

Most factory stock old cars from the mid 30s on could run on the highway at highway speeds, they just took longer to get up to speed.
That said, very few factory stock cars built before the mid 1960s would be able to get up to highway speed in today's traffic without getting run over. Some of the old engines of the day could be built up well enough to run with today's traffic, with the proper trans and/or rear end, but that might be questionable with the original transmissions and rear gears.
If the OP is not wanting to modify the drive train, I expect he better stay with his 390 powered 63 Ford.
Today's traffic gets moving pretty quickly when the light turns green. My wife's turbo 4 cylinder puts out 200 hp from about 160 cu in with a 4 speed auto. When your running in traffic, you have your foot into that turbo a lot to keep up. The 30s, 40s and 50s cars were not designed to get up to speed as fast as the current traffic goes. Gene

 

Yes 1955 looks to be the dividing year. In general, pre-1955 cars and trucks were slower and cruised at slower speeds. Adding into this, it is basically accepted that 1955 is when the "Horsepower Wars" started. As a result performance made drastic improvements from 1955 on.

After a quick search of state speed limits, it looks like Missouri raised it's limit to 70 MPH in 1957, while Illinois raised it's limit to 65 in 1959. It just goes to follow that the new cars of that time were able to cruise at that speed. I remember from the early 1970's, (pre 55 limit), Illinois had day time speed limits and night time limits. Also, these were for 2 lane roads, since the Interstate Highway System was under construction from the mid 1950's up through at least the 1980's.

From my own experience most 1955 and newer cars, (trucks to a lesser degree to lower rear end gearing), are quite able to cruise at 65 MPH. I've had various 1955 - 1960 Chevy cars as daily drivers since 1979. Some had 235 six cylinder engines. Some had either 283's or 327's. My current 59 BelAir has a 348. All did quite well cruising at 65 + MPH. My biggest worry with driving at these speeds is spinning the generator too fast and blowing it up. Never worried about blowing an engine, trans or rear end.

 

Ah, Hartford, grew up there.

My '58 Biscayne with a 235, three on the tree, and 3.55:1 rear end does freeway speeds just fine. Drove it all the way from Houston to Denton (north of Dallas) without breaking a sweat.

 

Oldsmobile!

 

As is the norm, all this talk of pulling power, ratios, top speeds, highway manners/ability. I guess I'll be the dickhead that reminds us that it's also a new millenium. Suppose we gear up and get up to a speed we perceive as "safer". What do you have now? Even if your whole combination adds a somewhat "current" feel to the cars highway manners in the HP/accelleration dept. what's the next move? I'm going to say bigger anti-roll (sway) bars, firmer shocks, proper tire inflation better be monitored like a daughter on a 1st date if you plan a good measure of steady freeway excursions. That little twit just ahead of you but 1 lane over, she's driving some modern import shaped like a turd, 8 out of 10 of them are busy texting or reading vs the matter at hand. And mutha fluck you for being in their way too. Those entitled little bastards think you're in their way. As you're minding your own business at 60+ MPH, what happens when you have to escape their sudden drift into your lane? Will your car corner like Ken Miles at Sebring? I'm thinking even the best will roll over so hard in a sudden emergency maneuver it might even flash the oil light, the rebound just as exciting, but the wrong kind of excitment, yes? I've been there in 6 figure cars that were at the top of the market scrotem pole in the 30s. News flash, they don't handle that little twit very well either. Better than say a Ford/Chevy/Dodge of the same vintage but no measure of actual "handling" as we know/need today. I didn't add this to spoil anyone's fun or cry wolf, and somewhere in the back of all the minds reading this I'd bet a little voice or imaginary video clip played out the same message. Speed isn't worth a bent dick if the rest of the car isn't able to manage it safely. Sometimes the back roads have an added charm to the experience, perhaps some of the best times will be found there in old unmodified drivelines. Surely we'll have less turds to dodge. Just sayin, and enjoy the ride. It's not supposed to be like your daily, right?

 

Highlander, do you do birthday parties?

 

Listening to some of you young guys you'd think that back in the 50's car weren't capable of doing expressway speeds. Or that the motor will fall apart because it's running 3K at 70 mph. Heck I had a 53 Ford w/flattie that I dragged with and it had 5.14 gears and I drove it 90 mi one way to the strip many times

 

Sadly, no I don't. I know my ramblings contain a bit of extra color, but those colors come out like a wild lowrider finish sometimes. I always said this place is just a few milk crates short of an average shop hangout...

 

I've put a lot of highway miles on my 57 suburban in the past few years....yeah, I kind of like the fact that it has some Camaro underpinnings....it won't outhandle modern cars, but it is a bit easier to stop and steer than the stock setup (like in my 59 pickup). Mild rear gearing plus overdrive mean it gets pretty good mileage at 65-75. And it looks just fine.

 

IMO, Thinking any 55 and up GM boat, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick cruises down the road @ 70 all day long, these cars ride nice with plenty of power.

 

With the '59 Ford, I wanted safety upgrades like 3-point belts, dual master & disc conversion. It had to have some power, which got out of hand. It had to be a 4 or 5-speed, settled on a nice 4-speed. Rewired from front to back so it should be reliable. Hydraulic clutch (got the bugs out of it) to make the swap easier. Came with a 3.56 open 9" rear so it works for now. Weight should come in around 3300 lbs with all the aluminum parts on it. Have gone on very short shake down rides so far, but all indications are good that it should be a blast to drive.

I've known guys that have sunk a lot of $$ into cars and at the end, they hate it for whatever reason.

 

It's even harder when your affliction is for old trucks that were geared lower and rode rougher than the cars of their day.

I like driving them. I like throwing a stick shift around and making the old machine work. I like riding with my arm out the window. The problem is not slow cars, the problem is fast life. I know slow ain't cool on a hot rodding site, but face it, even a 60s muscle car is not as quick and agile as your common economy car these days.

Technology can do wonderful things, but that doesn't mean our old cars are obsolete. Look at who puts the most miles on the road today-I'm talking about class 8, over the road trucks. Those rigs are eating up miles every single day all across the country. Notice the similarities between a 2016 Peterbilt 389 and typical car from 1930. They look the same, because their mechanical functionality is reflected in the outer skin that you see (unlike most cars built after WWII). Radiators and fenders are what they are. Under that thin skid is a conventional frame, leaf springs, drum brakes, and in-line six. If that old technology is good enough to hurl 80,000 pounds down the interstate at 75 mph for hundreds of thousands of miles on end, there's no reason we can't continue driving our old cars. We just need more horse power, better gears and the stamina to keep on truckin.

 

Missouri had daytime and night time speed limits until the 55 speed limit an on some roads that had car and truck speed limits as well.

here is the deal, I was raised with old hoopties and for that fact if for no other fact I know that they sound like they are coming apart as compared to a late model car. That is for more then one reason but one of them is that you can hear the engine in an old heap. Put a tach on it and see how many revs you are really turning, some times they sound like they are at their limit and still have quite a ways to go before they reach grenade speed.

A lot of states had open speed law and some still do. that is simple if the road is not marked you can go as fast as road and traffic limits allow. Nevada and Oregon are two that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

I think that The Highlander is right, and I think he is partially wrong.

The main concept of Hot rods, to me, is go faster, for less money without getting killed!
That means if I upgrade my engine, I upgrade my brakes, when I upgrade my trans mission I upgrade my handling, and so on.

I know it will never be millennium kind of safe, but for the way I drive it will be safe enough.
When we drive on normal roads, the law states 55 for cars and 50 for trucks (above 3.5 ton). Highway is 85 for cars, 55 for trucks, trailers and caravans.

As long as I don't have to follow trucks in the highway I'm more the happy, but no need to go 85 all day, 75 is very pleasant with my OD and tire size.

But for me handling is a most, but also being able to stop with modern traffic is important, and not get rear ended by a MoFo, who thought I was going 85. Or me rear endding another car because my brakes wasn't up to par.
I see no need to upgrade to discs, but I see no reason to run weak brakes with a big engine.
But I will have the opportunity and capability to avoid any obstacle that may come in my path, do a double aversive manouvere on a road at most "normal" speeds. And I want I to be possible to corner in orderly fashion. No completely like a go-cart, but also not like the Freaking nimetz (sp?) on dry land.

And I expect that people building there own car, drives there own family around in them use a lot of common sense, listen to others and one stay away from stupid solutions when ever possible.
To me that is the most safe I expect of a car of that vintage, so no millennium car safe, but safe enough!
As long as I'm not guarantied to get killed when driving in modern traffic all is good, and as long as I don't fear for my life at rush hour in happy.

 

Added power is easy as motor mounts.

Added power and speed will get you killed if you can't control it, point it, or stop it. That's a bit more involved, no?

 

I know this is semi-OT, but here goes, there was a car program on discovery, years back. About guys building muscle cars, and a guy tells about he gave all his kids a muscle car, his daughter but a Camaro.
He phoned all speeds shops in town looking for a dos brake conversion for said Camaro.
And the last speed shop he called, the guy told him in the most southern draw possible; "This is a speed shop, and we don't sell ANYTHING that slows your car down". So he started his own.

Wasn't it Mario Andretti who said; it's odd how many people, even on formula 1 level, who thinks that all you brakes do is slow you down.

 

Just to be clear, I had no intention of pissing in anyone's corn flakes. It's just that for many years of restoration and several of those folk wanting and getting highway speeds, well there's been the occasional sensational event reported regarding unexpected high speed maneuvers. Why leave unwanted skid marks in places other than the road...!

 

Some of the muscle cars of the 1960's weren't any bargain either. Mustangs were glorified Falcons on steroids. That whole line of cars on that platform were a handful with some HP added.

 

70? That's the slow lane on Houstons Beltway. Seriously, 70 is keeping up and praying.

 

Man, you told it like it is. Piss on, brother.

 

This thread made me think of this video I saw a few weeks ago.

 

I agree with those who are saying the big cars do the highway speeds the best in stock format. My girlfriend's 51 Chevy seems to reach it's upper comfort zone at 50, but last year's driver for me was this '55 Packard and I was surprised by how powerful it is. Not that rural Wisconsin traffic is very demanding, but still.

An Olds with Rocket power or a Cadillac would probably do just as well.

 

My Grandma had a Clipper just like this, rode in that car a lot when I was a kid. I seam to remember that car would haul the mail on the 2 lane Idaho highways.

 

Ideally, brakes should be engineered to match the weight of a vehicle, not the speed. Slow cars need good brakes, too. If for nothing else, it takes so long to gain speed in an underpowered vehicle, that drivers may not slow down every time they should.

If I'm driving a real acceleration machine, I'll slow down for every speed zone just for the fun of accelerating out the other side.

If I'm driving an underpowered rig, I'm tempted to keep the momentum up, at the risk overdriving an unexpected situation.

 

buy a nash rambler.

 

Well here's my 2cents worth...... been driving this for over 15 years now with 3.0 rear gears and a blown Flatty with C4 now you could add a T5 and maybe 4.11's and have a piece that will easily do 80-90 anytime you want and look good doing it if you wanted three pedals. Hell I even tow about 3k worth of weight with it.......... last pic is going down I-5 loaded

 

Fell free to correct me, but I still state brake size is also for speed and traffic density.

Because increased engine size, increased power and how often you will have to get hard in your brakes will factor in on you brakes lifetime and performance.
For instance the difference between braking a 54 car in 55 traffic, with a stock 235 on a rural back road is way different then braking a 1954 car in 2015 traffic, with a hot tri-power 409, on a highway in rush hour traffic.

There is always more then one reason to change or do upgrades for your brake system.
The finned Buick brakedrum, serves more purposes then one; increased brakesurface then a stock A-bone, they when run on a hydraulic set of brakes it gives better/powerful braking, because of the fins the keep performing better then stock Brakes on repetitive braking at the top of there heat range and last but not least they look fantastic on a rod!
And then you can also argue that they only brakes as good as the tires are able to hug the road when applying the brakes, but with handling upgraded tired size also gets bigger/wider.

Just my 2.cents worth here

 

I drove a 55 Olds for about 6 years. It was bone stock except for being bagged and I swapped out the dead hydramatic for a 700r4. She would happily run 80mph all day long if you wanted her to. Country back roads or rush hour big city traffic, she never missed a beat.

Halloween 07 by droplord49 posted Sep 26, 2008 at 5:16 AM

 

Back when we were kids we wanted 4:11 and 4:56 rear ends. In those days we didn't drive 4-5 hours to go to a car show or drag strip either. We mostly cruised areas where we lived.

Gary