Bill Mitchell’s specter hangs like a well-tailored vapor over my Great 28; after all, his guidance and leadership inspired two of the first four cars on the list. Of course, the vehicles occupying the list after the initial trifecta remain unstratified; however, if there is an actual number four, the original Toronado comes close. I’m not much of an Oldsmobile guy, but the ’66 Toro has rocketed into my vehicular stratosphere.
The Toronado has been covered here and in a million places already, so anything I add is bound to be extraneous, but this is my list and I’m compelled to expound upon the beauty and merits of my beloved Great 28. As I covered last time, I’m more of a Riviera guy, and a Buick guy in general. In many ways, however, the ’66 Toronado is a more impressive visual feat that a Riv, even if it is endowed with a few more odd angles. The rear three-quarter view is one of my favorites. The smooth, flowing quarter panel was not totally original, but it was the primary influence on any number of modern designs.
The posterior may have been less an influence. Modern cars are nearly shoulder high at the trunk, while the Toronado is almost unnaturally low. Typically, a car with a dropped rear end appears saggy and unfinished, but on the Toronado, the motif becomes dramatic, the fastest of fastbacks. The coved rear panel and thin taillights are elegant, almost customized. Straight through chromed tailpipes speak of muscular authority, a 425 cubic-inch V8 providing the lung capacity.
On a related note, I couldn’t care less about the whole front-drive aspect of it. Over time, it proved itself largely reliable, and the notion of a smoky e-brake burnout has entered my mind a time or two, but my main attractions to this car are its styling and its audacious lack of restraint. Of all American cars of the 1960s, other than the Corvair, what car managed to be this far from typical?
And then there’s the Cord influence. If a car must copy another in spirit, why not one of the most gorgeous automotive creations of all time, the Cord 810/812? One can observe the intellectual theft in the neat wheelcovers, which ape the Cord’s unabashedly. Obviously, the grille and driveline are also 810 sendups. On an unrelated note, I must assert that this is one of the most spectacular views of the car, accentuating its outrageous wheel flares and smooth quarters.
If there is one awkward spot in the design, it may be the interface between those flares and the severely angled bodysides. From certain vantage points, the result can be something less than linear, which is probably why some prefer the very elegant (and listworthy) ’66 Riviera.
That matters little to me, all in all, because the Toronado speaks to me; it demands my attention and I comply. It is one of a handful of cars that I’ll rephotograph time and time again, because I can’t walk away. I love it!
Maybe someday I’ll find myself behind the wheel of a spectacular ’66 Toronado, ringing up the miles and watching the cool drum-style speedometer do its thing. Until then, I’ll just have to keep taking pictures.
Not surprisingly, I’ve covered cars five through eight in other articles, including my COAL series. Four of my five cars are on the list (sorry Dirty Dart), so I’ll include links to them.
Car #5–1965 Pontiac Catalina Hardtop (2+2 shown here)
Car #7–1965-1969 Chevrolet Corvair
Car #8–1964-1965 Buick Skylark Hardtop and Convertible
Related reading:
CC 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado: GM’s Deadly Sin #16 – Let’s Try A Different Position For A Change
Oh yeah. My favorites:
61 Thunderbird
62 pontiac tempest le mans coupe 4 speed w/215 V8
63 Impala 2door hardtop
65 Corvette coupe 327 fuel injection 4 wheel disk brakes
65 Riviera
66 Toronado
67 Mustang fastback
I have a hard time calling it intellectual theft of the Cord; it has elements of conscious homage (something of which the designers and Oldsmobile never made any bones about), but it’s hardly a knockoff. If every instance of thematic inspiration or homage were theft, ever creative person in the industrialized world would be in prison.
The interesting thing about the Toronado’s low appearance is it’s not actually all that low by ’60s standards — it’s actually fractionally taller than a ’66 Thunderbird Landau. The blending of the sail panel into the rear fender and the flared wheelhouses makes the Toronado look lower than it is.
In that regard, the interface between the broad wheel arches and the severe body-side tumblehome is not an awkward element, but an essential feature of the design, making it look like the greenhouse is practically melting into the lower body. It lowers the car visually and gives it a squat, muscular shape. The Riviera takes a different approach, blending the sail panels with the decklid, but not the rear fenders, which have kind of a broad-hipped flair. The Riviera is still very sleek, but it looks taller and less hunkered-down than the Toronado, although the actual difference is something like 6/10ths of an inch.
I never thought the Toro looked any lower than the Riv, just its decklid. Just about any modern car has a decklid that’s twice as high as the Toro’s.
Necessary or not, the fender lip/bodyside interface is an awkward spot in my opinion. It doesn’t detract from my enjoyment of the car; after all, I like myself and I’m far from perfect.
The lip/bodyside interface is beautiful
The most important styling innovation of the Toronado was that the C-pillar seamlessly joined the quarter panel in a single plane. All other cars of the day had a step, make the body look like a small box sitting on top of a large box.
This is an impressive looking car. I’ll take a 67 with that slightly cleaner face, but yet another tasteful choice from signor sessenta-cinque. Love those front blades.
It looks like this car (the one showing it’s engine) has the Comfortron a/c. I don’t know how the Olds system worked but that’s something to avoid on the 1966-67 Riviera!
Just like you, I prefer the Riviera (I currently have a ’67 GS) over the Toronado and Eldorado and I prefer Buicks to Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs but I’m a big fan of all 3 early “E” bodies for their styling.
Four cars that stopped me dead in my tracks and left me slack-jawed when I saw them in the 60s;
– 61 Jaguar XKE
– 63 Studebaker Avanti
– 64 Corvette Stingray
– 66 Toronado
After 40 years, I still can’t rank them 1-4 – they’re all No. 1………….
Great car, almost right out of “Forbidden Planet”!
“Robbie the Robot” would drive one of these, and so would I!
I almost want to see someone doing a shot of Robbie the Robot standing in front of one like it’s his personal offscreen car, and line that up with the shot of Leonard Nimoy and his ’64 Riviera.
1970 Dodge Challenger
2009-2015 Dodge Challenger
1963 Ford Galaxie 500XL
1963-64 Avanti
1963-65 Buick Riviera
1958 Chevy Impala
Top my list.
ah crapola. I left the Avanti off my list.
The 1966-67 Toronados are at the top of my list as well as are the other two E-body styling triumphs of Mitchell and his talented crew at their very best.
Fortunately, I bought a ’67 Toronado as a cheap used car thirty-five years ago, enjoyed it tremendously both for its styling and its driving qualities. It remains my most memorable car……and I still want another one!
I like each generation of Toronado, but for obvious reasons, the first is my favorite. The ’66 is the best, as I’m not a fan of subsequent-year grille treatments and the common vinyl roofs that adorned them.
The early Toronado would make my list as well. I prefer the styling of the ’66 with its horizontal bar grille and taillights versus the checkerboard ’67s. The ’67 got front disc brakes, but those could probably be retrofitted onto a ’66 easily enough. I also love those artillery-style steel wheels in silver with small center caps as opposed to the available full wheel covers.
The ’67 could be ordered with optional disc brakes. Don’t get me started on that subject. I’ve ranted on it before.
I remember reading that the standard front drums on the Toronado were inadequate for the car, otherwise I wouldn’t be concerned about retrofitting discs.
The Eldo, I recall also you educated us about their drums, too. For the Standard of the World or Old’s techno wonder, this was unsat- should have been standard for both, period…Jag had had them for ages.
At least the Toro utilized her front wheel drive for a blazing climb up Pike’s Peak. I have no issues with fwd, my parents fwd DeVille and my Integra drove and handled great, especially in tracking. Saab’s and Legends were fantastic. Power oversteer is fun, but does not make one the enthusiast. And front wheel drive cars are much more forgiving in situations of biting off more than one can chew!
It really shocks me that the flagship Olds came with hubcaps and not full wheel covers as standard. Yes they were sort of a styled steel wheel but for the 60’s they were a little lacking in the style dept compared to other styled steel wheels. Of course they were at a disadvantage with the high offset needed for the FWD in general and the big holes needed for brake ventilation as a side effect.
The uncovered wheels, with the big slots, focused attention on the wheels (along with the dramatic, flared, wheel openings). It worked. The 1967 Toronado could be ordered with full wheel covers, and they don’t look as sharp as the original 1966 design.
Agreed–the styled wheels were part of the overall “look” of the car, and one of the many Cord-inspired details. In fact, when Jay Leno built his very well-executed custom Toronado, one of the only exterior modifications was the wheels–but he had the stock style recast in a larger size (18″ I think) to clear bigger disc brakes and to have a more modern wheel size to fender opening ratio without having to give up the distinctive style of the OEM wheels.
I doubt Jay was concerned about filling the fenders in the modern style. He just wanted tires that are available today and could put 700 hp to use while housing brakes big enough to work. Incidentally, the brakes were the Toronados biggest failing. Even by the pathetic standards of Detroit cars of the ’60s, the Toronado had brakes far inferior to the vehicle’s purpose.
I remember my dad telling me that when about 6 years old, that Toro’s had bad brakes, and he knew almost nothiing about cars, he would have have to read that in Time or Fortune or one of the other mags he subscribed to.
I have heard my own lurid tales of Toronado brake fade from a dude in circa 1977 high school, driving his dad’s ’68, and a narrow escape.
I just checked my sales lit and discs weren’t standard until 1970!
For shame, Olds, you get the Fickle Finger of Fate!
Leno can take his Toro and stuff it. It’s not a “real” Toro, it’s a hot rod with a Toronado body on top of it. And he had the car converted to rear wheel drive. Why? The cars whole raison d’être was its front-wheel drive setup. I guess the Unitized Power Package couldn’t handle that 700 hp crate engine without some severe torque-steer. But why the hell renovate a Toro and stick a crate engine in it if it means converting it to rear wheel drive? It doesn’t make any sense, and it just makes him look ignorant…
The best thing about the Toronado was the styling. FWD made less than no sense in this car. Who cares about packaging in an 18 foot long coupe? All FWD accomplished was putting more weight where it wasn’t needed, so giving the original Toronado body a better chassis makes sense to me. Anyone calling Jay Leno ignorant about cars needs to reexamine their own assumptions anyway. He knows more about cars than Hugh Hefner knows about aspiring actresses.
It doesn’t matter if he made the Toro fly, FWD is synonymous with that car, even many non car people(who are aware of it) know it’s FWD.
Keep in mind I’m the least FWD interested person in the world, I genuinely believe it’s widespread adoption has ruined cars and to this day I refuse to even consider that layout, even as a cheap beater snowbound daily driver. Yet when I saw whatever show that was many years ago that that Toronado was converted to RWD, I thought it was blasphemy. Jay Leno has resources up the ass, I have no doubt he could have improved the chassis and UPP. He has several dozen supercar RWD tourers he can enjoy, if you’re going to hotrod a Toronado you should keep it’s character, not turn it into a Corvette with a pretty body.
OTOH, he built the Toronado that GM should have. David North, who designed the Toronado, said that switching it to rear wheel drive didn’t mean anything to him, and that Jay Leno did more for the Toronado than he ever did.
I don’t care what either of them have to say about it, Jay Leno isn’t the ambassador of car enthusiasts(don’t get me wrong, I do like him though). All the Cord touches are pointless on a RWD car, I’d feel the same way if he converted a Cord to RWD for that matter.
What GM “should have built” can be applied to everything they ever made from a subjective point of view, but it isn’t what they built, and it’s that that we all remember and know it for. A toronado with a trans tunnel isn’t an alternate universe Toronado we were gypped out of, it’s another custom car with a Chevy engine. blah.
The Cord 812 was fitted with a conventional front engine, rear wheel drive layout and sold as they Hupp Skylark and Graham Hollywood. They were only made for a single year, but they sold better than the 810 and 812 combined in either of their production years.
+1 The wheels are extremely cool, and would have been even if they weren’t a Cord reference, but that makes them even cooler in my book.
Given the marginal fade resistance of the original drum brakes — which weren’t even big finned aluminum drums à la Buick — the very last thing the Toronado needed was something else standing between the brakes and the air stream…
That makes sense. It’s a shame that for such an upscale car as the Toronado, disc brakes were never made standard.
Front discs became standard in 1970 (and rear ABS became optional), but the Toro really needed big discs all around and some special attention to brake cooling.
I think the reason Olds didn’t make four-wheel discs standard was that they were really working to keep the price down. The Toronado was about $200 more than a Riviera, but a lot of the drivetrain stuff was expensive (Oldsmobile had to buy the differentials from Buick, which manufactured them).
I agree. Someone should’ve told the engineers that the ability to decelerate is as important to safety as the ability to accelerate.
I don’t think the engineers would have disputed that, but as expensive as the Toronado was, there is a persistent (and credible) rumor that Oldsmobile lost money on it. So, I think the division probably would have put their foot down when it came to the added cost of discs.
That’s a shame. You’d think that with the kind of money Oldsmobile had to spend building the car, they’d be wiling to spend a little extra money to offer disc brakes.
It is not like they didn’t offer wheel covers as an option in later years. My point was that for a flag ship car the wheel covers should be standard, or at least the trim rings should have been standard. You didn’t see the 98 rolling off the line without wheel covers as standard.
Nobody was going to cross-shop the 98 with the Toro. It was supposed to look sporty. In addition to being a nod to the Cord, I think the Toronado wheels were supposed to be akin to the Rally wheels seen on some other GM cars of the time.
No one said any thing about cross shopping but I’m certain some of the Olds faithful considered both a 2dr 98 and a Toro. The point is that those wheels look cheap, cheap, cheap in silver with no rings. Over at Chevy and Pontiac if you opted for the rally wheels you got trim rings as part of the package. Plain and simple they do not say flagship or sporty either, they just say cheap, seriously they couldn’t spend an extra $10 to the rings standard, and an extra $0.50 to paint the wheels body color?
Submarine sailors have always seemed to have more money than time or restraint. Therefore, I knew a lot of guys who had a lot of cars that could make any of our lists. This one was owned by a lieutenant who never had trouble getting anywhere no matter the weather. In good weather he got there quickly. FWD, big engine,and didn’t break. Quite a break from tradition.
A pretty car and a good one.
Remember, the fwd drive train was so stout and over engineered, it was used in the GMC motorhome- a great RV that had much better space usage due to no need for a driveshaft or rear differentials, no need for a “basement”. They also had great for the day MPG, aerodynamics and acceleration ( for a full sized RV ) due to the saved weight and hybrid unibody construction, with teak floorboards.
A 65 Corvair or a 65 Impala would be a tough call as they (seem) to share many design elements but the ‘Vair pulls ahead for it’s more “unusual” engineering.
And I agree, I think, that the Toronado’s FWD is icing on the cake….so to speak, but isn’t all that essential to this being a great looking car.
Although I’m too young to remember when this car debuted in 1966, I do remember seeing this generation Oldsmobile Toronado when I was a boy, and to tell you the truth, I thought it was the ugliest looking car Oldsmobile could’ve put together. Its nose looked ugly, its tail looked ugly. It just wasn’t very attractive. I thought the Buick Riviera was better looking than this. Fast forward 30 yrs. I still find the tail end unattractive, but today, I like the nose. 🙂
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought the Buick Riviera’s were better looking than the Oldsmobile Toronado of the same period despite me liking both of these cars, I always felt the ’66 Riviera looked more aggressive and sporty than the ’66 Toronado and the one thing what I liked more about the Riviera was it had RWD (I prefer RWD over FWD) instead of FWD.
I do have to admit that this generation of the Toronado is my favorite one ever built.
I love these cars, particularly the view from behind, as featured in the second and third photos. It’s so sleek and clean.
Bill Mitchell, however, later regretted that the Toronado was not based on the smaller A-body. Several people within Oldsmobile agreed with him, and, after all of these years, so do I. Just like the 1971-73 boat tail Rivieras, these would look even better if they were a size smaller.
I think Mitchell actually argued pretty strenuously for basing the Toronado on the A body when production of the design was first discussed — it was not an after-the-fact thought — and a lot of the senior Oldsmobile people agreed. The insistence on basing the Toronado on the E-body came from Ed Cole, then group VP, and was based entirely on the desire to better amortize the tooling of the E-body shell.
Another fan. But then, everyone already knew this.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1966-oldsmobile-toronado-personal-luxury-oldsmobile-style/
I think that the only U.S. car that was this groundbreaking in style was the 1963 Avanti. But the Toro has had more lasting influence on design. There have been few cars to come out since the Toro that have lacked open wheels, fender flairs and the integrated C pillar/rear quarter panel. Cars over the last 50 years which lack any of these features have been either throwbacks or oddities.
Just another example of how GM was at the top of their game in the mid 60’s, and one of the comparatively rare instances where Oldsmobile really took the lead. I’d love one of these or a ’66 Riviera, no question, but also if I had to pick one of the two, it’d be the Toro for me every time. I wholeheartedly agree that it’s one of the most “different” cars GM put out in the decade compared to the rest of the lineup, and that’s yet another reason to love it.
I like your statement that “GM was at the top of their game in the mid 60’s.”
They produced a lot of wonderful cars that I certainly liked back then but appreciated mor in my adult years. The Toronado was a car I admired for it’s styling and engineering. I’ve appraised a couple of Tornados and in doing so got a very close look at the features that set this model apart from other Oldsmobiles. I disagree with those who think it should have been on a smaller platform. It’s just right by my standards.
Once again an American car maker gets it right first time.Later Toronados never looked as attractive.Where did Oldsmobile go wrong if they could make cars like this and the Cutlass?In 1966 it would have been unthinkable that Oldsmobile would be shut down(and Pontiac,Mercury & Plymouth)
I still find these absolutely stunning. I was 12 when the Toronado was introduced, and all the hype in the automotive media convinced me that when they were unveiled at the dealer, I had to see them. In the showroom they had a well optioned maroon car and a lower level light blue metallic one. Later that day, after I got back home, our neighbor across the street pulled the blue one into his driveway, and it’s beautiful shape graced our neighborhood for several years until they moved away.
Another nice choice Aaron. I agree with Gerber that the car could stand to be a size smaller and I could live with smaller or no front blades but that is just being picky and maybe the UPP wouldn’t have fit then.
I am guessing this is the first American car to have high-offset wheels, at least post war, now that I think of it didn’t the Cord have them too?
This is a fun series, guessing what might be next or what the newest car might be for example.
I like the car purely for the styling and the overall shape of the exterior. I like the offset wheels. If I wanted to criticize I would start with the front overhang. It is too long. Then I would gripe about the front wheel drive. I think it should’ve been rear wheel drive. The long front overhang and the front wheel drive are related I think. Probably the FWD caused the overhang.
Not really. The UPP is very compact; the engine is longitudinal, the torque converter is behind it, and the TH425 is sitting against the side of the engine block with the output shaft facing forward. The diff is a tiny planetary unit that doesn’t take up much space. The UPP sits a little higher (1.5 inches, if memory serves), but it was designed to fit in the engine bay of existing FWD Oldsmobiles — the test mules were Eighty-Eights. Furthermore, the design that became the Toronado was not created with FWD, the UPP, or any specific production platform in mind. So no, I don’t think FWD had anything to do with the overhang.
When Hurst built a custom ’68 Cutlass with a Toro drivetrain, they only had to lengthen the front end by an inch or two, so most of that overhang is clearly there for looks.
You cannot draw that conclusion without knowing all the details of the modification.
@John: True, but the point remains: The UPP was designed to be and was very compact. The torque converter bell housing is behind the engine as in a RWD car, there’s the chain drive housing behind that (which is maybe 2.5 to 3 inches deep — the chain itself is 2 inches wide), and the actual transmission is tucked under the left cylinder bank, flush against the side of the block. The differential, which is itty-bitty, is under the engine, not in front of it à la Citroën Traction Avant. The whole package is 1.5 inches taller than the 425/THM in an Eighty-Eight or Ninety-Eight and is actually shorter because the transmission is not behind the engine.
Here’s a page (in German) with pics of the 1968 “Mini-Toronado”. The front clip has been cut off and replaced with a flat board. This should give you an idea of how much of the overhang was just for looks.
http://www.zwischengas.com/de/blog/2012/03/05/Oldsmobile-Mini-Toronado-1968-ein-Spezial-Toronado-fuer-winterliche-Notfaelle.html
Here’s a pic of one the test mules.
Correct, the FWD overhang is more of a transverse engine phenomena, although I will argue, as I often do when the subject is brought up, that more often than not RWD cars, especially in the first waves of the downsize era also had those supposed FWD proportions. I think there was more stylistic intent with overhangs than we admit now a days, which today is often universally assumed as a design compromise, and that good design means Duesenburg proportions, which in the case of this car, as AUWM pointed out, really isn’t the case.
Don’t forget the very exaggerated bladed fenders add a lot of visual overhang from the side profile either, the majority of the Toronado’s face is set back by a good 5 or 6 inches from the tips of the fenders.
For front-engine cars, I think the correlation between proportions and overhang and drivetrain configuration is pretty tenuous. There are some circumstances where the drivetrain dictates certain proportions, but there are plenty of cars that have similar proportions for purely stylistic reasons.
There’s not any intrinsic reason a transverse engine/FWD car should have a lot of overhang unless it has a wide V-6 or V-8 engine. With a transverse inline four, the entire engine is pretty much between the wheels, so the only things hanging out front are the radiator and maybe some minor ancillaries like the overflow tank and A/C (which would probably be sitting there in any case).
Where you can end up with overhang with FWD is with longitudinal engines, particularly inline engines. It depends a lot on where the transmission sits; if it’s behind the engine (as on the Honda Vigor and Legend) or in front (as on the Cords and older FWD Citroens), you usually just end up with a big chunk of the wheelbase ahead of the firewall.
“I think the correlation between proportions and overhang and drivetrain configuration is pretty tenuous.”
I don’t think you are getting the big picture. Front wheel drive replaced rear wheel drive because it is a more efficient use of space and materials and therefore gives the customer more(in theory) per dollar he spends. When you have a front-mid-engine car with rear wheel drive, there is a lot of dead space directly behind each front wheel well, and directly in front of the engine block(between the front wheels) or directly in front of the radiator(depending on where they put the radiator), not to mention the drive train tunnel down the center of the passenger compartment. To efficiently use the dead spaces, the engine is moved forward, the cabin width increased, and the space directly behind each front wheel well is converted to legroom. Then more front overhang is needed for the radiator and bumper and crumple zone. The next step for efficient space utilization is to eliminate the drivetrain tunnel by switching to front wheel drive and moving it even further forward. The next step is to shrink the engine, turn it sideways, and move it even further yet forward, way in front of the front axle centers. This accomplishes two things: more efficient use of space, and increased weight distribution on drive wheels to offset front axle unloading due to inertia during forward acceleration.
Granted, the Toronado drivetrain design is not all the way to the extreme in terms of space utilization efficiency like a Honda CVCC, but it is much further down that road than a Mustang of same vintage, and the Toronado’s FWD design is part of it. With FWD, the front axle centers could not be moved closer to the nose of the vehicle without drastic and severe alterations and complications to the entire vehicle design. On a front-mid-engine RWD vehicle, the engine position can be moved relative to the front axle centers easily, and the front overhang can be shortened or lengthened easily with minimal(by comparison) design alterations.
The downside to FWD? Poor handling characteristics, poor aesthetics, maintenance/service complications, comparatively fragile drivetrain components, less modular design, and less adaptable/flexible to atypical uses.
FWD is definitely NOT one of the Toronado’s best attributes.
@John, they certainly could have moved the front axle centerline on the UPP cars very easily the differential is a separate item and really the only thing dictating the location was so they could hang the axle carrier and differential brackets straight down from the mounting bosses that were for the motor mounts in the RWD applications. They certainly could have made brackets that moved that further forward.
Toyota did something similar with the original Tercel but put the trans behind the engine instead of mostly beside it as done in the UPP, but still stuck a separate differential housing along side/under the engine. Yes they bolted the differential housings directly to the trans but they certainly could have used a longer housing to push the differential further forward and not required a separate exposed drive shaft.
@John: I’m familiar with the term “packaging efficiency” and I’m perfectly aware of why modern cars, particularly small ones, have FWD more often than not. However, except for the smallest cars — Japanese mini-cars, European A- and B-segment subcompacts — packaging efficiency is not necessarily an overriding design priority even with FWD cars. Hence, there are FWD cars with all manner of proportions, some of which are perfectly disastrous from a usable-space-per-inch standpoint because they prioritize style, weight distribution, or just differentiating a slightly more upscale car from its cheaper platform mates (e.g., the Chrysler LHS).
If your point is that the Toronado’s design wastes the packaging efficiency that its FWD powertrain could have allowed, I completely agree. The UPP was designed with compactness in mind because Andy Watt, who led its development for Oldsmobile, really wanted to used it for better packaging of Olds sedans. (I still think it would have lent itself very well to the Vista Cruiser.) However, for reasons beyond Oldsmobile’s control, they were obliged to install the powertrain in a design that hadn’t been conceived with it in mind (the Toronado wasn’t actually conceived with production in mind at all), that had a body style and market segment that put a very low priority on interior space utilization, and that had to share its basic body shell with two other big personal luxury coupes, one of which had RWD!
So, yes, as an effective use of FWD, it was a waste, and since GM never used the UPP beyond the E-bodies and the GMC Motorhome, it was a dead end as an engineering exercise. I certainly don’t disagree with that.
@Eric: The Vigor/Inspire, later Legend, and Saber/TL were laid out kind of like the first Tercel: transmission behind the engine, driveshaft routed forward to the diff, with one halfshaft passing through the sump as in Fred Hooven’s Ford patent. Speaking of pointless exercises — it improved weight distribution a little bit (from maybe 63/37 to about 60/40) in exchange for badly compromising packaging efficiency, and unlike Toyota, Honda didn’t take the opportunity to make 4WD versions.
Never had the chance to get under one of the longitudinal Acuras, my guess was that they used the “separate” differential to place the axle center line under the engine like the UPP and Tercel, in contrast to the Audis and Subarus that used a true transaxle that necessitated putting the engine completely in front of the axle center line.
Yes the Tercel and UPP have the differential bolted directly to the trans but they are separate devices w/o shared lube. It is also standard practice when changing the trans (or clutch) to leave the diff hanging from the engine and remove only the transmission.
I am not familiar with you guys’ term “UPP”. Could someone define that for me please?
UPP – Unitized Power Package.
@ Eric: I went back and looked at the press kit more closely, and with the longitudinal Hondas, the differential is separate, located next to the engine block. On V-6 cars, the differential sits at roughly the middle of the right side of the block, under the right cylinder bank. On five-cylinder cars, the differential is on the left side of the block and the right-hand driveshaft actually passes through the crankcase. The differential is driven by a short shaft geared off the front of the transmission, right behind the torque converter housing. (All those cars had dual-shaft transmissions, even automatics.) It’s kind of neat, very elaborate, and seems sort of pointless given how much it cost.
FWD has nothing to do with the front overhang on this generation of Toro, with the longitudinal layout the axle center line falls farther forward relative to the engine than many RWD cars of the era. The front overhang is all about style, those blade fenders and all the space between the radiator and grille is what causes the overhang.
This brochure page shows the relationship of the differential, axles and engine quite well. http://oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1966%20Oldsmobile/1966_Oldsmobile_Toronado_Brochure/1966%20Oldsmobile%20Toronado-12-13.html
If that drawing is to be believed, the drive axles pass horizontally in front of the engine cooling fan. Is this your assertion to me?
No they just made the fan and much of the rest of the engine “transparent” to show off the axles and the rest of the FWD set up which is what they are highlighting in that diagram. The torque converter is not in the middle of the engine either, but again the engine is secondary to the point of the diagram and is “transparent” because of that. If you look to the right of the #4 box you’ll see the bracket which carries the passenger side half shaft. That bolts to the same bosses that motor mounts would on the RWD applications. The motor mounts are pretty much inline with the axle center line on the RWD cars.
If you look at the under hood picture in the article the axle center line is about directly under the PCV valve, or more or less under cyls #3 & #4
Then the half shafts are behind the engine and the engine is then necessarily in front of the axle centers…ENTIRELY in front. That is not anywhere near the typical engine position of a typical RWD american car of 1966 vintage. A typical RWD 1966 American car would have the bore centerline of the front cylinder of its V8 engine approximately even with the front axle centerline…which means the bulk of the engine is substantially BEHIND the front axle for a RWD ’66 vintage American car.
After looking closer at your drawing I think you have helped to prove my point, not counter it. The Toronado engine is significantly forward of the front axle and that is definitely much further forward than what was typical of that time period.
No the torque converter and drive chain is behind the engine. The transmission is along side the engine and the differential and axles are under the 2nd pair of cylinders which is exactly where it is on a full size GM car of the era. Again look at the under hood picture and you’ll see the relationship of the axle center line to the engine.
This page a under car pic showing the axle location relative to the engine, a trans and differential bolted together and some other cutaways and drawings showing how the UPP was set up. http://pixgood.com/1966-oldsmobile-toronado-engine.html Again there is no reason that had to put the axle center line in that exact location they could have just as easily moved it further forward but instead they kept it virtually the same as most cars of the era.
“Here is a under car pic showing the axle location relative to the engine.”
not very well
it is an angled shot and it is not clear how much of the oil pan was sacrificed to make way for the half shaft, nor is it clear how much horizontal bend(in addition to the vertical bend for suspension movement) in the CV joint is there. The more pics you show me of this nightmare drivetrain the less I like it. Did they *really* dent the exhaust pipe to make clearance for what looks to be a torsion bar suspension spring?? Can the start motor be removed without first removing the oil filter??
I’m tempted to remove the Toronado from my list of favorite cars(see first comment to this thread)
The point of the photos I shared was to illustrate that the design of the UPP did not dictate a large front overhang due to the relationship of the engine to the differential and trans. In fact it precluded the engine from being too far forward relative to the axle center line and it would have been very simple to push the axle center line farther forward.
The trans is more or less a TH400 that was cut in half, tight behind the torque converter, the gear box turned 180 degrees and the two halves mechanically linked by a chain. It would have been very simple to extend the transmission output shaft and push the differential forward had they wanted to. Even to in front of the fan if they really wanted a front mid engine FWD car.
The basic idea of the UPP was to combine the engine, transmission and differential into a compact package, relatively speaking for a large V8 at the time. You could easily lift the entire assembly straight up and out of the car. Or you can remove a single component while leaving the other two in place.
It has been so long since I’ve been under one I can’t remember what it took to R&R the starter. I probably would remember if you had to remove the oil filter but maybe not since it has been many years.
Here’s the UPP in image instead of words:
To add to what Eric is saying, I must also emphasize again that the Toronado was not designed with FWD in mind. It was originally the product of an internal styling competition and when Oldsmobile found corporate support to build the car, there was a lot of debate about what platform it should use, how big it should be, and so on. That project ended up more or less colliding with Oldsmobile’s question to build a FWD car; it’s not like the Olds studio sat down and said, “Hey, let’s design a special car for this new FWD package we’re developing.” (If they did, that design was not the Toronado.) Obviously, the production design had various modifications to fit the parameters of the E-body shell and so forth, but from the surviving photos I’ve seen of David North’s original rendering, the major design cues were there from the start.
The Toronado’s front overhang is easy to overestimate because the nose is basically shaped like a “W” in plan view and the front fender blades jut out quite a bit. So, if you look at the car in profile, it looks like there’s all this metal ahead of the front wheels, but a lot of that is just the “blade,” which is hanging there in space. If you look at the outer edges of the grille, you get a better sense of where the leading edge of the body actually ends. Viewed that way, the front overhang is not particularly dramatic; everything forward of that line is cosmetic or part of the bumper structure. The ’66–’70 Riviera, which was RWD, is similar in that regard even though the execution is quite different.
This is David North’s “Flame Red Car,” designed well before the Toronado was even assigned a platform. As you can see, the front overhang is similar to the production Toronado’s.
This shows your well made point even better, kind of the question of the chicken or egg being first? In this case the design came first then the engineering
Its styley from the right angles yeah but side on looks kinda drab I note there are no side on shots to show that, Not available over here new I got given a brochure as a child that had arrived at the GM dealership where my Dad worked I also had a toy Toronado in a metallic turquoise but thats as close as I got when they were current Ive seen some since in the metal and am less impressed now but I guess reality does that to ya as Paul tells it elsewhere they werent much of a drivers car more of a show pony.
This is a gorgeous car. It’s a 2 door with lots of style. This was a very futuristic design back then, and actually still is today. There are a few tiny bits about it I am somewhat less than enthralled with, but overall, it’s a beauty. I can definitely see myself driving this car, but probably not owning it. I would not want to deal with it’s FWD, and also because of that FWD, it would not handle the way I’d want it to. IMO anyway, had they made it RWD, it would have been near perfection.
“…had they made it RWD, it would have been near perfection.”
Agreed
It’s not like the Riviera, which was RWD, handled all that terribly well in any modern, particularly without the Gran Sport package (which was really pretty rare). I suppose compared to a Thunderbird or a Sixty Special it was reasonably spry, but that’s not really setting the bar very high.
Today manufacturers use the FWD layout to cut corners financially, making cars easier and cheaper to build, and increasing their profit margin. Most of these cars are not aimed at car enthusiasts. To me they have several disadvantages, and not one single advantage to the driver. Take a FWD and a RWD out to a skidpad, and the advantages of RWD will be immediately obvious if you are a skilled driver (yes I realize that does not apply to over 90% of the drivers currently on the road)
What seems strange about the Toronado and El Dorado is GM actually spent a lot of money designing and building these FWD setups and putting them into large heavy cars. One has to wonder what their reason was. It would have been so much cheaper to use a then conventional RWD setup.
Despite the poor gas mileage, I still have a Grand Marquis on my list, because it is a big RWD car. The low prices of most of them would help offset the high fuel cost.
Oldsmobile’s FWD package was originally conceived for an F-85/Cutlass-size car, where it would have made more sense, and most of the UPP prototypes were Eighty-Eights. The corporation, which had to approve the expense, didn’t like the idea of putting FWD in the regular cars for cost reasons — although the Unitized Power Package shared a bunch of pieces with the standard Olds engines and TH400 transmission, it also required some unique tooling as well.
At the same time, Oldsmobile wanted something to compete with the Thunderbird and Ed Cole, the group VP of the car and truck group (i.e., the division heads’ immediate boss) wanted to add more cars using the Riviera’s E-body shell. David North’s “Flame Red Car” design, done for an internal competition, was chosen as the Olds E-body (over Bill Mitchell’s protests — he wanted it to be intermediate-size).
In the midst of that, someone, most likely Cole, told Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac, “Look, the Olds guys are keen to do this FWD thing, but it’s too expensive for the B-body. Let’s put it in the E-cars, where people won’t balk at the price so much, and see if it works.” Hence, the Toronado and FWD Eldorado.
It didn’t have anything to do with product development or engineering logic; it was all about financial and logistical stuff.
The advantage to the driver is better initial traction in slippery conditions (vs. front engine/rear drive) and the fact that understeer is more easily correctable for the majority of drivers. There’s also greater packaging efficiency in (most) FWD layouts, which doesn’t have an effect on driving, but that’s the primary reason it has become commonplace – not because it’s cheaper, which it isn’t. How do you figure that one? Because of the lack of driveshaft/axle? Start from a clean sheet and design otherwise identical FWD/RWD cars… the difference in cost will be totally irrelevant.
FWD is at an obvious disadvantage when it comes to handling/roadholding, but that doesn’t mean it’s at all difficult to make a FWD car handle well, particularly where there isn’t much weight. It’s possible to have a FWD car that demonstrates completely neutral handling characteristics. In real world applications, the difference comes down to specific suspension design and tire stickiness far more often than just drivetrain layout and weight bias.
Anyone who doesn’t think FWD cars can oversteer should do a video search on “Peugeot 205″…
not because it’s cheaper, which it isn’t. How do you figure that one? Because of the lack of driveshaft/axle? Start from a clean sheet and design otherwise identical FWD/RWD cars
FWD incorporates the entire engine, transaxle, front suspension(cost often consisting of MacPherson struts), axles, steering and brakes into one unitized subassembly. It can all be assembled as a unit on a separate line from the car’s actual unibody and joined together with a handful of bolts. There are definite bang for the buck manufacturing advantages to that process.
I won’t say it’s cheaper than RWD platforms, but keep in mind RWD platforms of yesteryear were BOF and BOF offered those same advantages (other than needing more raw materials to make). The pressure to switch to unibodies played a role in nixing that convenient layout. It’s no coincidence that the full scale industry switch to FWD parralled the full scale switch to unibodies either.
Automakers sticking with FWD now are doing so for the exact same reasons they clung to those full framed cars through the 70s. It was the cheapest way to build them and they knew how to do it, why change? FWD’s consumer advantage is and always has been 75% marketing. Flat floors are moot with standard center consoles and nonexistent with the now ubiquitous AWD option, traction off the line and stability is way overcredited to FWD. So often RWD is thrown under the bus because it’s compared to leaf sprung nose heavy cars of yesteryear or sporty cars now(one notorious one of which clung to a solid rear axle until this year), but a truly modern RWD car can do just fine in slippery conditions and corrections are much more intuitive.
That’s a good point about the center consoles. I foresee a return to rear wheel drive some day. Either a drive train similar to a smart fortwo or similar to the 1961 pontiac tempest.
Matt is correct that a big part of the potential cost saving of FWD is in installation costs rather than the specific components being cheaper. FWD can be cheaper on a component basis, although against that is question of whether your existing tooling is set up for FWD or RWD. If your plants are equipped for one, switching to the other will cost you a mint, whichever direction you go.
Nonetheless, it’s not simply a question of inertia and it’s not that manufacturers hate RWD. In much of the world, and increasingly here, B- and C-segment cars are the norm, and the bottom line is that for B- and C-size cars, RWD just doesn’t make any sense unless you’re designing an actual sports car. RWD C-sized cars have awful packaging efficiency; I think the worst postwar example I’ve sat in is the old 100-inch-wheelbase Rambler American, but the previous-generation BMW 1-Series wasn’t much better. Even with D-segment cars, RWD takes a big chunk out of either the rear seat or the trunk, depending on how long the wheelbase is.
I agree that the ubiquity and intrusiveness of center consoles gets silly, but it partly serves to disguise the fact that many modern FWD cars, even ones that were not designed with AWD or hybrid conversion in mind, do not actually have flat floors. They have a central pseudo-transmission tunnel for the same reason the ’58 Thunderbird did: It’s a useful way to stiffen a monocoque structure without adding an absurd amount of weight and the console is a way of doing something with that tunnel rather than just having a fat carpeted hump in the middle of the floor.
“B- and C-size cars, RWD just doesn’t make any sense”
The VW Beetle was rear wheel drive. The Smart Fortwo is RWD. The 1961 Pontiac Tempest had plenty of room and was RWD.
The Beetle and the fortwo (and the late Mitsubishi i, which shared the smart’s engine) are rear-engine, RWD cars and not exactly paragons of space utilization either. An air-cooled (or electric) RR car is potentially better than an FR vehicle in terms of cabin space utilization because occupants don’t have to coexist with the driveshaft, driveshaft tunnel, or differential hump.
However, RR layouts are inherently troublesome from a cargo space standpoint because even with air cooling, luggage space is pretty much whatever you can stuff in the nose and having a hatchback or folding rear seats is generally out of the question. If the powertrain is particularly compact, you might have a little space above it — that was the case with the Mitsubishi — but at that point your “trunk” is a shallow slot and it’s probably going to get quite warm.
Add water cooling to the mix and the packaging situation gets even worse because the radiator typically ends up in front (along with other miscellaneous ancillaries), so you don’t have any usable space in front either. On top of that, with a front-mounted radiator, you have to run coolant lines through the cabin, which is not ideal for various obvious reasons.
So, yeah, I would say that in a modern context, it still doesn’t make much practical sense unless the goal is to make a car as tiny as possible and interior space is not a priority. (People don’t buy smart fortwos because they’re roomy and can carry a lot of stuff.)
Porsche 911 notwithstanding, RR cars also have inherent handling and stability issues. (Porsche has managed to mitigate those over the years, but I think if they could get away with just making the 911 MR like the Cayman and Boxster without the faithful having a cow, they would.) The Beetle’s deficiencies in that area are well documented, but even the smart and the i, which are much more modern cars, have pretty mediocre handling. Again, you can mitigate the failings with fancy suspension hardware and/or electronic stability control, but it’s not exactly an ideal foundation.
The Y-body Tempest was not a B- or C-segment car. It was about the size of a modern D-segment sedan like the Fusion/Mondeo or Honda Accord, which are not small cars.
“The Y-body Tempest was not a B- or C-segment car”
A Tempest style drivetrain scaled down with a 1.5 liter 90 degree V4 engine would fit very nicely in a modern Honda Civic or similar car.
A pancake version(cylinders facing forward) of a Mitsubishi 3B2 would fit under the rear seat of a small tall upright style car like a 98-08 ford focus easily, and I strongly suspect the pancake layout would improve handling.
The pancake engine of the type 34 VW ghia had plenty of trunk space, as did the other type 3 VWs. I envision a water cooled 2 cylinder boxer engine in something like a type 4 VW
P-cow. Hehehe
I remain in the dark as to why the early FWD cars had truly flat floors but more recent ones almost never do. The GM UPP cars (Toro and Eldo up to 1985, ’79 to ’85 Riviera, and ’80-’85 Seville) had completely flat floors and usually true 6-passenger seating which was still common at the time. I remember the Citroen DS had a flat floor too. Starting with the GM FWD X-cars in 1980, the floor had center hump almost as large as RWD cars. With center consoles in front now ubiquitous, there have been a few recent FWD cars with flat floors in the rear only – Honda Civics for example – but most have a hump. I’m told it often houses the exhaust pipe. What gives?
In any case, GM chose the least needy cars for FWD in the ’60s and ’70s, cars mostly sold to people who probably couldn’t care less about drivetrain configurations (likewise early antilock bracking systems and air bags). Flat-floored FWD would have made more sense in mid-size and large sedans and wagons that often had the center seating positions filled.
Beautiful car, along with the 67 Eldorado AND the criminally underrated 66 Riviera(which I think is every bit as pretty as the 63-65). The Cord homages were what made it so cool to me, it wore it’s classic influences on it’s sleeve but still managed to be thoroughly modern to boot, retro is rarely that restrained (I like MN12 Cougars for similar reasons). The FWD is what makes it, despite greatly preferring being pushed from the rear wheels as personal preference. I don’t think the Cord touches would have the same naturalness on a RWD car, it would be a shallow retro exercise like many current FWD cars wearing old RWD originated styling themes.
I think the importance of it being FWD has probably been somewhat lost over the years, although that’s really more of a guess since I wasn’t around back then. Driving the front wheels was still a major novelty at the time (in the U.S. anyway), and it certainly did turn out to be the future – although not quite how the Toronado predicted it. Aside from just being new, fancy tech it also had the upside of better traction in the snow & rain and a completely flat floor. Like Aaron mentioned, it also gives you the ability to do funny looking burnouts. Was that worth the tradeoff of abysmal braking and poorer handling? Probably not, ultimately, but it still makes it just a little more special and unique.
I agree about the ’66 Riviera. The Toronado got more press, but the 1966–67 Riviera is a fabulous-looking car and honestly I think it’s better-looking than the Toro.
Great choice. These always look good in gold. The ’66 was design perfected, the tweaking over the next few years wasn’t terrible, just not as good. Too bad the era when car designs would stick around for several years didn’t start about 5 years sooner. 1966 would have been a nice place to get stuck for so many cars.
This car is an outstanding example of “peak GM.”
I’ll be honest, I have never liked those truck-looking wheels on the early FW drive GM cars. Never had and still don’t
I always felt the 1966-70 Olds Toronado and the Buick Riviera’s were way ahead of its time and it was definitely an era when GM was creative and knew how to build great cars, I only wish the Toronado was RWD like the Riviera was.
My Top 5 favorite cars of all time are
1968 Cadillac Deville/Fleetwood
1965 Pontiac Bonneville
1967 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight
1971 Mercury Marquis Brougham 4 door
1968-70 Oldsmobile 442
This was sent to me last nite,amasied at all the interest after 50 years. Very knowable
Guys commenting . Some really understood this car and what we were trying to do.
It’s an honour to have you here.
The R v. F WD discussion above left out the now critical issue that FWD can (not in the Toronado case) save weight for the same passenger room. No driveshaft and a shorter wheelbase is possible, so the engine can be smaller and lighter, and the structure supporting it will be lighter and closer to the passenger cage, requiring less steel to be rigid.