We’ve done several posts on the Chevy Fleetline fastbacks, but never on the Pontiac version, dubbed “Streamliner”, appropriately enough. They shared their GM A-Body from the cowl back, but the Pontiac had a longer nose to make room for its venerable straight eight, a flathead unit that dated back to the early 1930s.
As to it being “The World’s Finest Straight Eight”, that’s a bit hyperbolic, as the Packard and Buick straight eights would like to suggest otherwise, never mind some exotic Europeans.
The Pontiac eight had 268.4 cubic inches and was rated at at 108 or 113 hp in 1950, presumably depending on whether it was teamed with the standard three speed manual or the optional Hydramatic; there was also a 239.2 cubic inch flathead six rated at 90 or 93 hp. As a point of comparison, the 1950 Chevrolet’s 235 ohv six had 105 hp when teamed with Powerglide; the standard 216 six was rated at 92 hp. No wonder Chevy outsold Pontiac by more than three-to-one at the time.
But that longer hood had to be worth the extra money for looks alone…
The proportions are just right, but I never knew or even thought about a GM fastback of this style with a flathead engine. I just assumed that this streamlined body, independent front suspension, and OHV all went together.
Badass patrol. Nice livery too, with an attractive retro logo design. Reminds me of an elongated Henry J, aft of the A-pillar.
The F Head engine wasn’t a sparkling performer but it certainly pushed those heavy cars down the road very well .
I had a 1954 two door with Hydramatic drive and it was a very fine car indeed .
Another one I let get away .
-Nate
It’s not an F head; it’s a flat head, or side valve.
My parents owned what I believe was a ’52 with the straight 8. One Saturday we headed out, got to the end of the block and BANG rattle rattle rattle, I heard the most god awful sound in my young life. Luckily we were headed uphill and somehow dad was able to turn the car around and coast home.
Dad’s best friend was a Buick mechanic who was able to transfer his skills to the Pontiac and had it running in no time (bad piston).
I liked the car because Pontiac’s head lit up at night, and I was able to lay down on the rear shelf (not while moving).
I’ve never studied much about pre-DeLorean Pontiac history. This car, and this post, seems to make it quite clear that Pontiac knew its place on the Sloan ladder. I’m guessing that by 1955, with the introduction of the small-block Chevrolet engine (within 18hp of the Pontiac) and the fancy Bel Air trim level and hardtop body style, Pontiac became a bit less relevant until the Knudsen-Estes-DeLorean team moved the brand in a new direction.
The Pontiac straight eight used cast iron pistons through 1953, according to the Chilton manual. The Pontiac six gained aluminum pistons in 1953, at which time its horsepower rating went from 100 at 3400 rpm to 115 at 3800, just 3 bhp less than the eight. Perhaps they were feeling Chevrolet breathing down their neck. Wonder why the Eight didn’t get alloy pistons at the same time?
Contemporary consumer magazines say that Pontiac resale value was among the best at that time. They seem to have been considered durable cars.
Hudson also had a straight eight in ’50. I think they dropped it after ’52.
I’ve never know Hudsons of that era to have anyhting but an inline 6. Hudson didn’t make an 8 cylinder engine for the `48-`54 models.
Yes, the Commodore eight was built until 1952. But the bigger 308 six in the Hornet that arrived in ’51 made it irrelevant. Before the Hornet, the Commodore 8 was the top Hudson engine.
I would imagine that the Pontiac eight offered a higher torque rating at low rpm. Torque ratings were not usually advertised at this time, but more low end torque makes for more effortless low speed acceleration. That’s what the older pushrod GM 3.8 V6’s had. It was well suited to American style traffic conditions.
Higher than what?
The stats are available; the 6 made 208 lb.ft @1800 rpm; the 8 made 220 lb.ft. @2000 rpm.
As a point of comparison, the ’51 Olds V8 made 263 lb.ft. @1800 rpm.
I was thinking that the Pontiac 8 produced more torque than the Chevy six. I would think that the more expensive Pontiac would perform better than the cheaper Chevy, but that’s just a guess. Sometimes lower priced cars are better performers than more expensive models.
The Chevy 235 six had 105 hp and 193 ft.lbs. The 216 had 92 hp and 173 ft.lbs. But then the Chevy weighed almost 400 lbs less than the Pontiac 8, so that would have offset much of the difference.
In any case, the Pontiac 8 was not exactly known for its peppiness.
I’d submit the 9 main bearing ohc Nash straight eight post 1935 as one of the best. The bigger Packard 9 bearing 356 was more powerful and smooth, but the Nash ohv combined the more efficient ohv head of Buick with the rigid + strong 9 bearing bottom end of the Packard. If it had been of larger displacement than 261 cu in it would have been even better.
btw the Pontiac straight 8 and the Olds 8 were virtually the same engine, many parts were interchangable iirc.
that is the Olds straight 8: 257 cu in. not the later ohv 303 V8.
I had one in my ’47 Dynamic 78 coupe.
Everyone speaks highly of the ohv Nash 8 (discontinued after 1942 because of poor sales) but it seems not to have had any appreciable power advantage over contemporary L-head eights, perhaps in part due to Nash’s use of manifold passages cast into the cylinder head (they called it the Monitor Sealed Motor).
Also, the carburetors used on most prewar cars were surprisingly small by later standards. They were designed to be smooth and (relatively) economical, not for maximum bhp.
I think it’s interesting that when Nash dropped its heavily-advertised Twin Ignition (two sparkplugs per cylinder) in 1942, the claimed power of their ohv engines stayed exactly the same: 105 for the Six and 115 for the Eight.
Paul is correct. Hudson redesigned flathead, maybe to f’head, about 1940. It outt performed all American engines until 1949 Caddy ohv v8. Hemming Motor News Classic Car magazine reported on the superior Hudson Hornet 6 cylinder engineering
I’m nearing 90 !! My first car was an almost new 50 Olds 88 fast back with Hydramatic drive . My grandfather had a 49 Hudson Commodor 6 stick shift . We did drag race them a few times . The Olds was much faster . Another friend had a 50 Cadillac sedan that could just edge out the Olds. Then a friend bought a 50 Olds holiday ht 88 . It could eat up everything . We found out that because of the heavier reinforced (convertible chassis) Olds changed rear end gears from 2.64 to 3.09 in those two models . I later bought a new 54 super 88 ht , but the 50 88ht could walk away from it very quickly , even at top end speed . My cousin later bought a 56 Dynamic 88 , 2bbl but larger cube engine . Guess what !? That 50 88 ht was still the quickest all the way to the top . So the 50 Holiday 88ht really has stuck in my mind for a lifetime . I then moved over to a Chrysler Saratoga with 331 ci hemi , but stayed away from Oldsmobiles -lol ! All these years later I still have a gorgeous 54 2dr ht Imperial Newport.
Have a great 2024 !! As for myself , hoping for a few more years of fun .
Would like to make a correction on my comment . I reread my story and felt bad about a mistake. The standard rear axel gear ratio for 50 Olds sedans equipped with Hydramatic was 364 , but due to extra weight of reinforced convertible and hardtop models they went to a 3.90 ratio . Standard shift were equipped with 4.11 .
— now I’ll sleep better !!