1950s cars that were better?

[Joe Werner]

Ive been driving my 1957 chevrolet the past couple of days. While driving the car i was wondering if there were any cars from this era that were better in braking, handling, ride, control? then my car was? or were they all about the same?

[carbdoc]

Joe,

Late-50s Chrysler products with their torsion bar front and leaf-spring rear suspension were the best handling and riding cars, hands down. Tom McCahill actually compared the handling of a new '57 Imperial to that of a contemporary Jaguar!

Braking is another matter: back then, Chrysler had something called "Centerplane" brakes which used one wheel cylinder per brake shoe. This basic system was used up through 1962, and I am not impressed with how it stops my '61 Chrysler Newport with non-power brakes even after a thorough overhaul. Hard as it is for this die-hard Mopar guy to admit, your Chevy's braking characteristics are probably better.

Jeff Dreibus

[Dave@Moon]

Early- and mid-50's Buick brakes were notoriously under-designed, with serious fading issues. By 1959 all models had been upgraded to 11" drums, aluminum in front. I'd rank my '60 Buick's brakes as almost as effective as any modern system w/o ABS. Given the weight of the car (4400 lbs. minimum, that's really saying something! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

They were so good, in fact, that it's been reported in some Buick texts that by 1961 they were deliberate reduced in size and effectiveness due to dealer complaints that they weren't getting enough of them coming back for brake jobs! It (along with the Corvair sway bar debacle of 1960) is evidence of the very beginning of GM's troubles today. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Randy Berger]

Jeff, Chrysler torsion bar vehicles did ride well, but couldn't match 55-56 Packards that went around corners and curves without the usual roll of a big automobile. And I've never seen a Packard break a torsion bar, but it was a

common occurence with all Chrysler products. Tough handling when halfway thru a sharp curve and the bar snaps.

[Aanderson44]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ive been driving my 1957 chevrolet the past couple of days. While driving the car i was wondering if there were any cars from this era that were better in braking, handling, ride, control? then my car was? or were they all about the same? </div></div>

For starters, just about any American car of the 1950's, indeed well into the early 70's was a rather broad compromise, based on price, comfort, and features.

In any discussion of the cars of the era it's very well to understand that until the late 1960's, the new-car market was that of adults who had grown up anywhere from the very early 20th century through the 1940's and early 50's. Their concerns where their cars were involved were as much about size, comfort, and a smooth ride. "Sports-Car" handling, and race car acceleration & braking were not at all high on their lists. Kauffman Thoma, head of Chrysler in the early 50's wasn't completely wrong when he expected the corporation's cars to be tall enough so as to not knock his hat off when he got inside--most well-dressed men at the time wore high-crowned felt hats, if not to work daily, to church on Sunday. The same was true of women--large hats.

The vast majority of roads and streets of the era dated back as far as the late 20's, tar strips and all. Much of the concrete pavement laid in those early years wasn't thick enough, nor reinforced well enough to carry the heavy traffic they were supporting by 1950, so enter softer and softer suspensions, and fatter, wider, softer tires. With parallel parking taking over in downtown after downtown, and power steering still on the horizon, those large, soft tires lead to ever increasing lock-to-lock steering--if you've ever tried to put your '57 Chevy, without power steering, into a parking spot parallel to the curb, between two other vehicles, you understand what physical effort is involved.

Brake fade was an issue, but almost always something the average driver rarely faced--after all, not many of our parents or grandparents drove their cars that hard, and they generally learned to downshift into second gear when approaching a serious downhill grade--in fact this was taught as late as 1960 to Driver's Ed kids--I was one of them.

Times have changed, and markedly so. A car built to the engineering standards of even a '57 Chevrolet (argued by many to have been one of Chevrolet's finest efforts in handling and performance to that time) wouldn't make the cut today. Too slow off the line, too unmanueverable, sloppy steering, far too much slippage in the Powerglide, and a wallowing, soft suspension system. But for the day, a great car. Why, unless your's is a 4bbl, or a Fuel Injection model, with a low-ratio 4:11 or 4:56 rear end, you should be able to maintain 20mpg on the highway--lots of people did just that, even with the 283 V8 back then. But in today's traffic, I imagine it can feel a lot like a traffic impedence--everything around you seems so quick, so manueverable, so "sport".

Art

[Clipper47]

If you are not strictly referring to American cars and also not 2 seater sports cars I would say that the Jaguar Mark 1, Volvo 544 and Mercedes Benz 200-300 series sedans of the '50's were superior in braking and handling. The 55-56 Packard with Torsion-Level was a marvelous handling and riding car. My limited experience with a '56 Packard is that in the brake dept. they were adequate for the time.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Probably the best handling/riding/performing (all in one package) American car of the period was the big Step-down Hudson...

They had the lowest center-of-gravity and handled like they were on rails, compared to other cars of the period. Hudson also appears to have been one of the first American cars to fit wider brake shoes on the front: 2-1/4" up front with 1-3/4" on the back... most cars had the same size shoe at all four corners until the late '50s, early '60s.\

And if you had a Twin-H Hornet with the 7-X "severe usage engine", which whomped-out about 210 HP, then you could leave just about anything else in the dust.

Chrysler products were always known for their comfortable ride and decent braking ( for their day)... I have not personally experienced breaking a torsion-bar in a MoPar, but then I haven't been putting them through anycompetition-type driving.

Chrysler did have some quality-control issues around '57-'58, and general rust susceptibility '55 - ?

A fine car ( and under-appreciated) were the '57-'60 Rambler Rebel and Ambassador - great ride, good power ( with the V-8), and the Rebel was about the fastest car in its class, due to a favorable power to weight ratio...

The Chevy was a decent car, and handled "okay".... the biggest handling limitations were the skinny bias-ply tires, and softly sprung suspensions, narrow tread, and higher center of gravity...

No stock car of the '40s-'60s is going to corner and stop like one of today's little squat rice-rockets... the geometry is just different...

I rather like the fact the my old iron forces me to drive a bit slower and more thoughtfully...

Good luck - drive safe !

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Ivan Saxton]

There were big differences. Early 1950's Lancias had all independant suspension, massive brakes, (inboard at the rear), 50/50 weight distribution, light alloy V6 engine with hemispherical combustion chambers, and a very modest fuel consumption. In the 100 years that Lancias have been built, they have always been extremely quick from point to point because of their handling. I used to go to a dentist in Melbourne, and twice I remember sitting in his waiting room 70 minutes after driving out the gate here on a trip of 70 miles, much of it on old single pavement highway before the duplication. And I was not hurrying. The 1953 Aurelia B22 has such acceleratiom braking, and handling that you spend little time below your cruising speed. In the 1951 Mille Milglia Bracco came second in a B20 behind Villoresi's 4.2 V12 Ferrari by 30 minutes. The Lancia was conceeding around 2.5 litres engine capacity, and 60mph top speed. At 850 miles, when the rain stopped, the Lancia was 3minutes behind the leader! Grand Prix car design in a road car --- noone else offered that then ine sports cars, let alone family sedans. Ferrari did not. Nor did Mercedes or anyone else. If you want a fun car to restore and drive, look for a Lancia. Lancias of the fifties are still great to drive in modern traffic and very safe. There really were big differences between cars of the 1950's. it all depended what they were built for.

[Aanderson44]

Frank,

Ditto on the "Step Down Hudsons"--those were excellent cars, in their day, even on modern roads--Hudsons being a car built for the Interstate highways that didn't yet exist!

Of course, 49-54 Hudsons were "tanks" when new, even more so today, but still, with good tires, good shocks, good brakes, and in proper tune, they work just about as well as any full-sized American car of recent vintage. If they have a drawback, it would be the tremendous number of turns lock-to-lock in the steering gear, but again, that is typical of cars built before power steering.

For about a year, in the early 60's, I had a low-mileage '53 Chevy Bel Air Sport Coupe, and aside from the terribly sluggish performance emanating from the Powerglide, it was a pretty good car, and surprisingly taut, with pretty good road manners as well.

Import cars from Europe of course had handling characteristics that gave them almost a "sports car" feel, but there were drawbacks as well--very few European or British cars were really well-suited for American roads or driving habits.

Art