Nothing impressive about a 389 2bl ha let alone in a 5k lb car,...they pushed 3700lb gtos to low 16s,.....
^ No where near 5000. My '64 Cat's shipping weight was 3770. PS, radio, automatic, plus fluids- maybe just over 4000.
By all reliable accounts- it had a motor in it. Some minor rust-dust clouding came out of it, but I don't believe it's structural integrity was in question. But I've seen pics of '59 Chevy frames, and I had a '60 Pontiac X-Frame - that X was built much stronger than Chevy did their's. Still; that structure is not built for offset frontal crash integrity, esp vs. a heavy boxed perimeter frame.
My buddy had a '65 Catalina 2-dr sedan, hi-comp 2bbl 389 / TH400. Probably had a high 2.xx rear. One time we ran it wide open, just floored it on a very rural 2-lane road. Speedometer needle was bouncing; 100, 110, 120, kept bouncing around where '130' & '140' would be, then it suddenly dropped out of sight to the right. [I have no illusions it was going remotely that fast- it was probably more like 115- whatever that 290 HP/axle combo was capable of.] Suddenly the car made a new loud, steady, 'whooshing' sound. My buddy let off the gas, we coasted down and eventually pulled over. Opened the hood, reeled back from the heat, and looked around. The 389 had -no lie- sucked the steel, oval air intake snorkel almost completely shut, like it had been flattened in a press. Never would have imagined that was possible. Wish I had kept that air cleaner.
I'm shocked, thought it would be around 4400.. Shipping weight was around 3950 and curb weight around 4100 + I'm sure the 66 Wildcat has 400+ lbs on it. Nailhead are heavy motors iv'e heard on top of the longer wheel base and thicker skinned Buick. I could be wrong.. Edit: one source has the 66 wildcat at shipping weight at 4000 and curb weight at 4300. Seems about right before the options are added.
That is impressive.. Its amazing what 130+ mph can do to a car that wasn't meant to run that fast.. New one too me
I don't know why Buick kept the X frame so long? probably for cost reasons and the lower stance. There are other little differences between GM cars in those years.. I had a friend who drove a 66 GTO convertible and later a 67 GTO vert at the same time I had my 66 Skylark GS. He was shocked in the difference of ride and smoothness between are rides. Now his was a convertible and they do flex a bit and the doors didn't shut the same with a nice solid feel but it was also how my GS absorbed bumps. The rubber bushing between the cars could of been dryer than the other plus the GS had more body bushing like said. One thing he really liked on mine though was Buick used a set of rods and springs on the throttle setup where the GTO used a cable. The feel of the gas pedal just felt more of a quality type of thing. It's a little thing but it made a small difference. Now it was a dangerous setup if you put the air cleaner on wrong or if you broke a motor mount at wide open throttle because the rod could get stuck..
The 1963 Jeep Truck I bought in California some years ago had every crevice in the body and frame packed with dirt and dust. In case of an impact, it would have disappeared in a cloud of dust. Was that car very rusty? Maybe, but there are other likely explanations.
Quite the restriction that air filter must have created. Engine was probably turning 4500RPM at that speed?
If that's true that shows the piss poor construction of old cars then,...a fully loaded 68/72 GS is 4klbs,....a no option 455 4speed is 3650,....I know because I have one and gave weighed it
X-frame was primarily for stance. With the X-frame the driveshaft runs through the frame, not under it. The X-frame necessitated a two-piece driveshaft, a universal joint, and a center support bearing and mount. Some GM cars (including Buick) got a constant-velocity universal joint that was an expensive PITA. I guess the lower stance meant more to GM then the extra cost of the driveline.
And what did your friend experience between the rides? Which car he felt was the smoothest ride? I know what you mean with throttle response. I once felt the auto trans selector of a 73 Ford, immediately when shifting from park to drive i felt it didn't feel as smooth as a Buick selector.
He felt my Skylark GS drove way smoother and less tinny. He just blurted it out one day after he borrowed it. When I mentioned the throttle difference I mean pushing the gas pedal literally. The rod and spring design was different than the GTO's cable setup. Now his GTO was modded with a cam, intake, headers etc. so the motor had a lumpier idle and off throttle. Would be nice if you compared your 73 Ford to a 73 Gran Marquis or similar..
I worked at a machine shop where the guy across the lot ran a car repair shop back in the early 90's. He had a 4 door Bel air that he was working on. The door panels were off and I was expecting to see some heavy gauge 1950's era metal and insulation in the doors.. I remember not being impressed with the inners of those doors. No better than my 82 regal door internals. The body skin was probably better though.
I understand what you mean about the gas pedal. That 73 Ford was a Thunderbird, do you think a 73 Gran Marquis is different? Exactly, i am sure the Skylark felt less tinny.
Agreed. I believe the 1st true X-frame was the '57-58 Eldorado Brougham, which had an overall height of 55.5". A '56 Coupe deVille was 59.7.
