Car Model Names?

[Restorer32]

OZ is the abbreviation for ounce. There were many other less flattering naames my brother called his. Never could get the thing to run right until we replaced the carbs with a set from a MK VII Jag. It was a '76? Maybe '78?

[Paul Dobbin]

At the risk of being mis-understood, when I came into the hobby 40 years ago, guys were still saying "they liked car shows for the T's & A's." So, I joined the Model A Club and lusted after T's until I bought a 1915.

[carbking]

A couple of observations:

First, virtually all of the early US produced cars used model numbers, not names.

Second, going strictly from memory (NEVER a good idea), I think the Pontiac Trans-Am would not have been legal for the SCCA TransAM series. I seem to recall the series had a 5 litre displacement limit, and up until Pontiac downsized, the Pontiac Trans-Am had a 7.4 litre engine.

And who was it that had the clock (tach) installed at about 3 o'clock???

Jon.

[Guest]

OZ is the abbreviation for ounce. There were many other less flattering naames my brother called his. Never could get the thing to run right until we replaced the carbs with a set from a MK VII Jag. It was a '76? Maybe '78?

Don't know how you did that. In 1975 and newer, all Z cars are fuel injected. The 240 meant 2,400 cc's.

D.

[poci1957]

Second, going strictly from memory (NEVER a good idea), I think the Pontiac Trans-Am would not have been legal for the SCCA TransAM series. I seem to recall the series had a 5 litre displacement limit, and up until Pontiac downsized, the Pontiac Trans-Am had a 7.4 litre engine.

Hello Jon, you are exactly right that the Trans Am with a 400 or 455 V8 was never legal to actually race in the series--they did indeed have a 5.0 Litre (305 cid) maximum. Pontiac built an experimental 303 V8 that either never raced or only ran once or twice. I guess this did not help the early car's enthusiast credibility.

Pontiac did agree to pay the SCCA $5 per car for the use of the name at least through the 1970s, meaning that in 1978/79 they were paying $500,000 a year. Todd C

[Guest]

A couple of observations:

First, virtually all of the early US produced cars used model numbers, not names.

Second, going strictly from memory (NEVER a good idea), I think the Pontiac Trans-Am would not have been legal for the SCCA TransAM series. I seem to recall the series had a 5 litre displacement limit, and up until Pontiac downsized, the Pontiac Trans-Am had a 7.4 litre engine.

And who was it that had the clock (tach) installed at about 3 o'clock???

Jon.

The Pontiac Trans Am U.S. spec. car never competed in the T/A series because Pontiac did not have a engine small enough (303" limit) at the time. Pontiac did have a engine ( 5 engines ) in the development stage that never did go into production. One of those engines was a short deck 400 based engine call the 303 to be used in the T/A series---not to be confused with the later 70's short deck version of the 400 a 301. These five engines were all base on Pontiac block architecture but used a tunnel port design similar to the FE series Ford.

Privateers did race Pontiac T/A's from Canada because Canadian Pontiac's used Chevy engines. Many Pontiac people do not consider Pontiac's with any other than a Pontiac engine to be a Pontiac, much the same as many Oldsmobile people do not consider a Olds without a Rocket engine to be a Olds.

D.

[Restorer32]

Must have been an earlier car then because we certainly mounted those carbs. The originals were water cooled and just never ran well. It ran fine with the replaced carbs.

D.

[Guest]

Must have been an earlier car then because we certainly mounted those carbs. The originals were water cooled and just never ran well. It ran fine with the replaced carbs.

D.

Yes, the 1973 SU carbureted engine was water heated, and in 1974 the engine was enlarged to 2,600cc creating the 260Z which also used heated new Hitachi "F" series carburetors. The displacement increased and the new carburetors, a desperate attempt to hold on to lost horsepower and drive-ability due to further emission standards imposed. Many a day spent at death valley by test teams to try to sort out and fix these problems which were exasperated in very hot weather. Ultimately solved with a catalytic converter and fuel injection in 1975. Between 1972 and 1974 the ultimate means of controlling or dealing with new standards technologically was not feasible until proper testing and development allowed it so. So as usual the customer suffered and the all manufacturers reputations suffered.

D.

[Rusty_OToole]

Wonder if the English went to model numbers because they had such a poor knack for picking names? Humber Snipe, Armstrong Siddeley, Standard Vanguard , Austin Hampshire, Morris Oxford, these were all actual cars.

William Lyons managed to dream up the Jaguar name but only after naming his cars SS first. This did not sound so clever after WW2 so he changed to Jaguar, then quit while he was ahead, using numbers and letters from then on.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest]

Wonder if the English went to model numbers because they had such a poor knack for picking names? Humber Snipe, Standard Vanguard , Austin Hampshire, Morris Oxford, these were all actual cars.

William Lyons managed to dream up the Jaguar name but only after naming his cars SS first. This did not sound so clever after WW2 so he changed to Jaguar, then quit while he was ahead, using numbers and letters from then on.

Oh yes, a SS100 my #2. My #1, the XP13;)

D.

[poci1957]

Yes, the 1973 SU carbureted engine was water heated, and in 1974 the engine was enlarged to 2,600cc creating the 260Z which also used heated new Hitachi "F" series carburetors. The displacement increased and the new carburetors, a desperate attempt to hold on to lost horsepower and drive-ability due to further emission standards imposed. Many a day spent at death valley by test teams to try to sort out and fix these problems which were exasperated in very hot weather. Ultimately solved with a catalytic converter and fuel injection in 1975. Between 1972 and 1974 the ultimate means of controlling or dealing with new standards technologically was not feasible until proper testing and development allowed it so. So as usual the customer suffered and the all manufacturers reputations suffered.

D.

Edited April 13, 2012 by poci1957 (see edit history)