59 BUICK WAGON VERSUS 59 PONTIAC WAGON

[Guest Rob McDonald]

rob, if the closed torque tube driveline was really so much better than the open driveline, then why did buick and chevy give them up and switch to the open driveline ?, answer #1 is less time to remove transmission for repairs, and answer #2 easier to lube front and rear u joints, answer #3 is less weight means better performance and fuel economy, answer #4 is cost less money to build, which means a lower buying price for the car. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

CHARLES, good comments, all. I do dispute your #1 because I just removed my engine and Dynaflow as a unit. The only difficulty I can see with extracting the transmission on its own is the hellish location of the upper bell housing bolts. Using two ratchet straps, tugging the coil-sprung rear end backward a few inches to disengage the torque tube spline was surprisingly easy.

#2: the single universal joint in a Buick's driveline doesn't need to be periodically lubed because it's bathed in whale oil that fills the torque tube. Yes, that introduces more potential leakage issues - and maybe animal rights ones, too - but it was a good choice for a premium car back then.

Your #4 answers your opening question. Cost. It's always about cost. One torque tube application where cost is secondary to engineering is Mercedes-Benz's SL series. From the first Gull Wings to the current ones, they all have a torque tube. It's now a remarkably slim aluminum device but Daimler-Benz still seems to think it's the best way to transfer torque, without secondarily loading the car's chassis.

[Marty Roth]

CHARLES, good comments, all. I do dispute your #1 because I just removed my engine and Dynaflow as a unit. The only difficulty I can see with extracting the transmission on its own is the hellish location of the upper bell housing bolts. Using two ratchet straps, tugging the coil-sprung rear end backward a few inches to disengage the torque tube spline was surprisingly easy.

#2: the single universal joint in a Buick's driveline doesn't need to be periodically lubed because it's bathed in whale oil that fills the torque tube. Yes, that introduces more potential leakage issues - and maybe animal rights ones, too - but it was a good choice for a premium car back then.

Your #4 answers your opening question. Cost. It's always about cost. One torque tube application where cost is secondary to engineering is Mercedes-Benz's SL series. From the first Gull Wings to the current ones, they all have a torque tube. It's now a remarkably slim aluminum device but Daimler-Benz still seems to think it's the best way to transfer torque, without secondarily loading the car's chassis.

Rob,

I have to concur with your well-thought-out response. While Charles makes a good thesis, I believe you have presented the finite detail. Thanks.

Marty

[Centurion]

Interestingly, even though Motor Trend named Pontiac its "Car of the Year" for 1959, it also named the 1959 Buick Invicta as the "Best Looking Car Overall" and the Invicta Estate Wagon as the "Best Looking Wagon".

Despite Pontiac's successful use of the Wide Track design as a marketing theme for many years, the early Wide Tracks were not reputed to be the best handling / cornering cars on the market. I've read sources that indicate that Pontiac's front suspension design was rather antiquated compared to the other GM lines of the time, and this became a focus for improvement by the early 1960's.

The point here is that each General Motors division maintained its distinctive engineering traditions. The cars evolved over time, and, ultimately, they improved when competitive pressures made the financial outlays a priority. In the same way that Buick, for example, discarded the torque tube after 1960, Pontiac finally replaced its flathead engines after 1954. As the years passed, an unfortunate consequence of the "improvements" is that the cars became increasingly similar, and the unique engineering practices of each of the divisions was ultimately lost.

rluke is making a choice between two 54-year old station wagons. We could argue for many days regarding which was the better car in 1959, but does that really matter now? Part of the appeal of an older car is that it is antiquated, reflecting a bygone era in our collective history. It's not only the styling that makes these cars special; it's the unique technical aspects that also make them worth preserving. Either one is a fine choice in that regard.

[PONTIAC1953]

one interesting point about the timeline that pontiac quit producing the straight sixes and eights, is that pontiac had the strato-streak 287 V8 ready for the 1953 model year, but BUICK and OLDSMOBILE went to gm's board of directors, pleading that they would lose too many customers to a 1953 pontiac with a V8 engine. so the directors told pontiac to wait untill 1955 to bring out the V8 engine, because they felt by then chevrolet would have their new V8 ready also. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[avgwarhawk]

one interesting point about the timeline that pontiac quit producing the straight sixes and eights, is that pontiac had the strato-streak 287 V8 ready for the 1953 model year, but BUICK and OLDSMOBILE went to gm's board of directors, pleading that they would lose too many customers to a 1953 pontiac with a V8 engine. so the directors told pontiac to wait untill 1955 to bring out the V8 engine, because they felt by then chevrolet would have their new V8 ready also. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

And then along came Caddy with a honking V8. Nothing like a good cu. in. displacement war!

[Guest]

And then along came Caddy with a honking V8. Nothing like a good cu. in. displacement war!

Between Pontiac, Olds, Buick and Cadillac engines in 1959 there was only eleven cubic inches difference for 1959. As far as Pontiac's suspension goes, Pontiac actually got it right and that very same basic ( there is track differences ) suspension remained through 1964 and if your not counting rear steer to front steer all the way to the end of rear wheel drive Pontiac's and most of GM produced cars as well. Bringing GM brand cars closer together such as most all of the canopies of GM cars of 1959, automatic transmissions and front wheel steering in 1965. I prefer rear wheel steering over front because it puts all the steering components behind the front wheels and safety wise it's obvious that a front steer system with the steering box and a long steering shaft sticking out front with no collapsible steering column (untill 1967) is a sure way to center punching a drivers chest.

Thank you Charles for pointing out that Pontiac was ready to go for it's V8 in 53. The 53 chassis was designed for the V-8. Nothing like holding a division down. Thanks for crying to corporate Buick.

BTW, Brian, you should read what mechanic's and drivers in NASCAR said about the advantage of a wider track Pontiac.

Edited January 17, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest]

Interestingly, even though Motor Trend named Pontiac its "Car of the Year" for 1959, it also named the 1959 Buick Invicta as the "Best Looking Car Overall" and the Invicta Estate Wagon as the "Best Looking Wagon".

You know Brian, I read that motor trend 1959 car of the year cover to cover, who were the contenders and all and I can't find that " Invicta" statement. What I did find was; " Aside from the technical aspect, Pontiac's lines are clean, simple and beautiful. It has the fleet look, a trim appearance. The wide wheel design contributes greatly to it's overall integrated styling. Any comparison with narrower-track cars readily shows the difference".

[Centurion]

Interestingly, even though Motor Trend named Pontiac its "Car of the Year" for 1959, it also named the 1959 Buick Invicta as the "Best Looking Car Overall" and the Invicta Estate Wagon as the "Best Looking Wagon".

You know Brian, I read that motor trend 1959 car of the year cover to cover, who were the contenders and all and I can't find that " Invicta" statement. What I did find was; " Aside from the technical aspect, Pontiac's lines are clean, simple and beautiful. It has the fleet look, a trim appearance. The wide wheel design contributes greatly to it's overall integrated styling. Any comparison with narrower-track cars readily shows the difference".

Evidently, the "beauty" pronouncement was not part of the Car of the Year issue, but was, instead, included in another issue. I'm not sure that I'll be able to identify which issue, but the quotes were picked up in the media and Buick advertising by February, 1959.

Motor Trend named the Invicta four-door hardtop the "Best Look*ing Car Overall" for 1959, and named the Invicta Estate Wagon "Best Looking Wagon." MT complimented the four-door hardtop's flat roofline over its "control tower" rear window that "introduced another horizontal element into the fleetness in that plane." Car Life's Jim Whipple wrote, "The '59 Buicks are beautifully styled and finished cars, well-built and powerful."

Edited January 17, 2013 by Centurion (see edit history)

[John348]

Guys my opinion is that most of these magazines instructed their writters to support the advertizers. Remember the Le Car was Motor Trends car of the year. A few posts prior Centurion hit it dead on! It really is not what they were thought of in the time of being new but what the owner thinks of it now. When I look at the signatures of the cars we own we all own very different cars from eash other. Remeber one thing wagons are a hard car to restore in general

Edited January 17, 2013 by Biscayne John (see edit history)

[PONTIAC1953]

thanks don, i'm reminded also going back to 1948, when cadillac and oldsmobile were getting ready to introduce each division's new overhead valve V8 engine. cadillac had their engine cubic inch displacement at 289, when they learn that the oldsmobile's rocket V8 is a 303 cid, they weren't willing to have V8 smaller than olds, so cadillac rework the design, and enlarged the 289 to a 331. i guess 8 years later, cadillac drop the ball, having a 365 V8, and olds in 1957 now having a 371. one year later pontiac pass cadillac with pontiac's 1958 engine becoming a 370. cadillac would finally get it's 390 V8 in 1959. buick was the first to get into the 400+ cid with it's 1959 401.

1959 engines

buick 401

cadillac 390

oldsmobile 394

pontiac 389

chevy 348

charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest]

thanks don, i'm reminded also going back to 1948, when cadillac and oldsmobile were getting ready to introduce each division's new overhead valve V8 engine. cadillac had their engine cubic inch displacement at 289, when they learn that the oldsmobile's rocket V8 is a 303 cid, they weren't willing to have V8 smaller than olds, so cadillac rework the design, and enlarged the 289 to a 331. i guess 8 years later, cadillac drop the ball, having a 365 V8, and olds in 1957 now having a 371. one year later pontiac pass cadillac with pontiac's 1958 engine becoming a 370. cadillac would finally get it's 390 V8 in 1959. buick was the first to get into the 400+ cid with it's 1959 401.

1959 engines

buick 401

cadillac 390

oldsmobile 394

pontiac 389

chevy 348

charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

Hey Charles, here is another interesting one. By 1959 most GM cars were automatic's. Taking the least expensive car from each division aside from Cadillac with the Base engine and automatic you get;

Pontiac; 389", 280hp, 4 speed Super Hydramatic

Oldsmobile; 371", 270hp, 4 speed Jetaway Hydramatic

Buick; 364" 250hp, single speed dynaflow in drive.

Chevrolet; 235 straight six 150hp, Two speed PowerGlide

FYW for all you automatic fans, Pontiac Strato Flight and later called Super Hydramatic, Olds Jetaway, Cadillac 315 Hydramatic are all the same transmissions, called by their designer and builder Hydramatic Division GM, Controlled Coupling 4 speed Hydramatic.

Edited January 17, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

thanks don, i'm reminded also going back to 1948, when cadillac and oldsmobile were getting ready to introduce each division's new overhead valve V8 engine. cadillac had their engine cubic inch displacement at 289, when they learn that the oldsmobile's rocket V8 is a 303 cid, they weren't willing to have V8 smaller than olds, so cadillac rework the design, and enlarged the 289 to a 331. i guess 8 years later, cadillac drop the ball, having a 365 V8, and olds in 1957 now having a 371. one year later pontiac pass cadillac with pontiac's 1958 engine becoming a 370. cadillac would finally get it's 390 V8 in 1959. buick was the first to get into the 400+ cid with it's 1959 401.

1959 engines

buick 401

cadillac 390

oldsmobile 394

pontiac 389

chevy 348

charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

The V8 wars!

[Marty Roth]

The Dynaflow, in 1959, while you did not feela shift, was not a single speed transmission.

The turbine just made the transition feel so seemless that it may have seemed that way.

They were quick, too! Even going back to 1956 as I recall, the century boasted a Zero to 60mph time UNDER 10 seconds.

[John348]

From finishing off the 60 Wagon I remember the Dynaflow is hard to get parts for and expensive when you did find them

[Guest rluke]

rluke is making a choice between two 54-year old station wagons. We could argue for many days regarding which was the better car in 1959, but does that really matter now? Part of the appeal of an older car is that it is antiquated, reflecting a bygone era in our collective history. It's not only the styling that makes these cars special; it's the unique technical aspects that also make them worth preserving. Either one is a fine choice in that regard.

This is true. I think I would be happy with either. I am not loyal to one particular make, I just want a cool wagon that I can take my kids to car shows in. I am from Australia so either one of these cars would be a rare sight. I wish I could have both but I may have to sell the buick to recoup some costs(see my other post http://forums.aaca.org/f169/how-get-title-58-buick-342106.html?highlight=1958+buick+title). I found the Pontiac wagon (9 seater) when I was over there a few months ago in Colorado(the same day I found the buick) and it was in decent shape. Would there be a considerable driving difference between the 401 with dynaflow and 389 with 4 speed? It looks to me that the Pontiac would be more economical. Either way I understand that they are old cars in need of work and I appreciate everyones input, thanks, Rob

[John348]

Rob,

If it is coming down to MPG as a deciding factor, with all due respect maybe you should rethink the entire project and look for something else all together.

[Guest rluke]

Rob,

If it is coming down to MPG as a deciding factor, with all due respect maybe you should rethink the entire project and look for something else all together.

No its not about that, I am just trying to get an idea about the engine and trans setup as they aren't readily available to me to test drive. My knowledge of these old American cars is limited obviously so maybe it doesn't really matter as I wont have the other car to compare it to.

[John348]

Got it, a little translation problem, sorry

[Guest]

rluke is making a choice between two 54-year old station wagons. Would there be a considerable driving difference between the 401 with dynaflow and 389 with 4 speed? It looks to me that the Pontiac would be more economical. Either way I understand that they are old cars in need of work and I appreciate everyones input, thanks, Rob

Well if that's the deciding factor with styling and a better riding and handling car excluded. The Pontiac has a more efficient, more flexible automatic. Performance wise the Pontiac will blow the Buick's doors off.

If you could put a Controlled Coupling 4 speed Hydramatic in a 59 Buick and measure mileage, and quarter mile times against a exact equal Buick with a Dynaflow you would also see the difference. Hydramatic's 3.97 first gear and a second of 2.55 would simply get the Hydro equipped car out front to stay, and because of it's split torque in fourth only 25% of the engines power is going through the fluid coupling the rest is direct mechanical and means there is less slippage and more efficiency. Just a FYI: P type and D type Hydramatic's are the most efficient automatic's ever made only loosing out to automatic's with a lock up converter. They are more efficient than a T-350 and a T-400.

[Guest]

The Dynaflow, in 1959, while you did not feela shift, was not a single speed transmission.

The turbine just made the transition feel so seemless that it may have seemed that way.

They were quick, too! Even going back to 1956 as I recall, the century boasted a Zero to 60mph time UNDER 10 seconds.

First, Buick dropped the name Dynaflow in 1959 and offered two automatic's for 1959, one a standard automatic called Twin Turbine and optional Triple Turbine. In drive both transmissions started out in high range with no shifting. Twin turbine had a low gear, but it could only be used manually in the "L" position. Triple Turbine had a "G" or grade retard provision which was only used for coming off steep grades. Some owners made the mistake of treating it like like low in Dynaflow ( now called twin turbine ) which was worse than useless from a performance standpoint and sometimes caused transmission damage.

Edited January 18, 2013 by helfen (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

The Pontiac has a more efficient, more flexible automatic. Performance wise the Pontiac will blow the Buick's doors off.

The fact that a 1959 Buick wagon weighs roughly 300 lbs more than the equivalent 1959 Pontiac wagon is also a contributing factor.

[Dave@Moon]

I am just trying to get an idea about the engine and trans setup as they aren't readily available to me to test drive. My knowledge of these old American cars is limited obviously so maybe it doesn't really matter as I wont have the other car to compare it to.

My 1960 2 door hardtop Buick had a optional low compression V8 (364 cu. in., 235 hp.) that was known informally as the "export" motor. It was designed to run on regular gas. I routinely got about 14 mpg city driving, 17 mpg on the highway.

Being a reletively expensive option they were quite rare in the U.S., and in 1959 and 1960 could be identified by the Stromberg WW Series carburetor, which was no longer used on the "normal" Buick motors. Outside of the U.S. it's likely that this motor is the one you'll most likely encounter.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[PONTIAC1953]

The fact that a 1959 Buick wagon weighs roughly 300 lbs more than the equivalent 1959 Pontiac wagon is also a contributing factor.

i looked in the encyclopedia of american cars 1946 to 1959, the buick lesabre wagon weighs 1356 pounds more than the pontiac catalina wagon. buick 4565 lbs vs pontiac 3209 lbs. a bonneville safari would weigh 3532 lbs. still 1033 less than the buick wagon. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest]

i looked in the encyclopedia of american cars 1946 to 1959, the buick lesabre wagon weighs 1356 pounds more than the pontiac catalina wagon. buick 4565 lbs vs pontiac 3209 lbs. a bonneville safari would weigh 3532 lbs. still 1033 less than the buick wagon. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

Charles, First my Dads and later my car, a 59 Catalina 2dr hardtop originally in 59 as a A/Stock Automatic and later when I started racing it in F/SA in 1965 tipped the scales at 3,907lbs. Racing weight. My 62 Catalina weighs 3,700 lbs' and my 69 LeMans ( dose have A/C ) weighs a astounding 4,050 lbs.

[Guest]

My 1960 2 door hardtop Buick had a optional low compression V8 (364 cu. in., 235 hp.) that was known informally as the "export" motor. It was designed to run on regular gas. I routinely got about 14 mpg city driving, 17 mpg on the highway.

Being a reletively expensive option they were quite rare in the U.S., and in 1959 and 1960 could be identified by the Stromberg WW Series carburetor, which was no longer used on the "normal" Buick motors. Outside of the U.S. it's likely that this motor is the one you'll most likely encounter.

Pontiac offered a similar engine option in 59 called the 420"E" 389 engine with 8.6 compression and 215hp with automatic and Old Tom McCahill of mechanix Illustrated drove one coast to coast and averaged 21.7 miles per gallon.

[Guest]

i looked in the encyclopedia of american cars 1946 to 1959, the buick lesabre wagon weighs 1356 pounds more than the pontiac catalina wagon. buick 4565 lbs vs pontiac 3209 lbs. a bonneville safari would weigh 3532 lbs. still 1033 less than the buick wagon. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

Charles, I just looked up the weight of a Bonneville wagon ( remember all wagons are on the smaller 122" wheel base. This comes from the great reference book 75 years of Pontiac Oakland by John Gunnell.

Weight; 4,370 lbs. I believe all weights are given with no accessories added including no automatic's.

[Guest Rob McDonald]

CHARLES, I've got to dispute that encyclopedia's claim for the Buick wagon's weight. Back in the late-80s, a friend of mine bought a '59 LeSabre 4-door flattop, while we were down at the Portland Swap Meet in Oregon. I didn't find anything I wanted to bring home that year and he'd purchased another old car as well, so I offered (shamelessly begged maybe?) to drive the Buick back to Edmonton.

In a convoy of about half a dozen cars (none of which were newer than 25 years of age) it was a wonderful 2-day drive over the mountains and across the prairies. That all-original, metallic green LeSabre was a fabulous highway car! After we crossed the line into Canada, the whole string of us pulled into a government weigh scale station. Must have been a slow day because the officers let us pull our old cars across the scale, one at a time, and issued us an official ticket saying what each one weighed.

I don't remember the exact number but I was shocked that it was not much over 4000 lbs. Although it looks like you could land a small aircraft on them, the junior Buicks that year - LeSabre and Invicta - must be mostly air. I can't believe the station wagon weighs 700 lbs more that the sedan, though. When you think about it, the only extra material is those long, long quarter windows and maybe a third row folding seat.

That the Buick weighs considerable more than the equivalent Pontiac is not surprising. The nailhead engine, Dynaflow, and torque tube all add their gravity and I suspect there was more chassis stiffness in the higher end cars. Wagon bodies were outsourced from Ionia Body Manufacturing; they might not have had the same resources (or motivation) as GM-owned Fisher Body, to optimize the amount of steel in the superstructure. Come to think of it, maybe that explains the additional weight of the station wagon over a similar sedan.

[Dave@Moon]

That the Buick weighs considerable more than the equivalent Pontiac is not surprising. The nailhead engine, Dynaflow, and torque tube all add their gravity and I suspect there was more chassis stiffness in the higher end cars.

Also the Buick's perimeter frame was massively heavier than Pontiac & Chevy's "X" frame that year.

A good source of generic information like this is the Oldride.com Research Library. It can be spotty, with specifications for some cars and production codes for others with many cars missing, but it's a good stop initially for information like this.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[PONTIAC1953]

the weight listed in the book must be wrong, charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[Centurion]

Rob, you've made an important point regarding the '59 Buick as a "fabulous highway car", and I truthfully think that this is where the Buick excelled compared to many of its 1959 competitors. My wife and I have driven our '59 Buick from Seattle to Michigan and back in 2003, and from Seattle to Colorado Springs and back in 2009. My wife is not easily impressed by old cars, but always remarks on the car's ride quality, comfortable seats, and relative quietness. We've cruised all day at 80+-mph, and we arrive relaxed and comfortable.

On the trip to Colorado Springs, one of my fellow '59 owners, driving an unrestored Invicta '59 4-door hardtop on a rural Wyoming highway, accelerated easily to 115-mph before he opted to ease up on the throttle, and the car was always "planted" and poised at the high speeds.

We like the Buick's massive finned aluminum drums, which the auto magazines often cited for several years as the best brakes in the industry.

Fuel economy at freeway speeds -- about 70-mph -- seems to run consistently about 15-mpg with the 401-cid 4-bbl engine and Triple Turbine transmission, and that seems comparable with other higher-end cars of the era. LeSabre owners reported high teens to low twenties in highway conditions when the cars were new.

There are still thousands of Dynaflow-equipped Buicks in operating condition, and the substantial turnout of Dynaflow-era cars at the Buick Nationals is a testimony to their driveability and durability. Rebuild kits for the Dynaflows are readily available, and they are not considered to be difficult to rebuild or repair. There are at least three transmission shops in my area alone that are happy to work on Dynaflows.

One factor for rluke to consider is club support in Australia, and I know that there is a very active Buick collector community in Australia that is focused on driving-type events. Among the Australian collectors are a number of individuals who have restored or are presently restoring 1959 Buicks.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Centurion (see edit history)