It’s getting mighty hard these days to find a “Tri-Five” Chevrolet that hasn’t been rodded or restored to within an inch of its life. That’s why I was delighted to spot this 210 two-door sedan sitting in back of a garage lot recently – other than the license plates, it looks like it could have driven right out of Ward Cleaver’s garage (aside from the fact that The Beaver’s Dad drove a Plymouth).
We’ve long decried on these pages the Lack of Choice in Contemporary Automotive Offerings, and it takes only a cursory glance at the lists of 1956 Chevrolet models, colors and available accessories to see just how far we’ve fallen.
Besides being able to select from the base One-Fifty Series (more than likely ordered with the “Blue Flame 140” six), the mid-range Two-Ten Series (including the fabulous Delray coupe), and the top-of-the-line Bel Air Series, buyers had ten solid body colors and fourteen two-tone combinations from which to choose.
An extensive array of accessories were available for both inside and under the hood. Any 1956 Chevrolet could be ordered with a “Super Turbo Fire V8”, which added to the 162 HP base engine a high-performance intake manifold, higher lift cam, dual exhausts, four barrel carb and an 8.0:1 compression ratio–all of which served to bump the 265 CID (4.34-liter) mill to 205 HP. If that wasn’t enough, a second four-barrel carb could be added along with a 9.25:1 compression ratio, bringing output to 225 HP–and making the 1956 Chevrolet one of the fastest production cars available that year.
A new 210-Series two-door sedan started at $1,912.00, which translates into around $16,000 in today’s money. The presence of the “V” on the hood indicates that one of the aforementioned V8s is lurking underneath. Two- and four-door models were also offered in hardtop form as the Sport Coupe and Sport Sedan, respectively (it’s a shame a hardtop station wagon wasn’t offered!).
The easiest way I know of to tell a One-Fifty, Two-Ten and Bel Air apart is by their unique chrome side spears. The One-Fifty’s horizontal spear is of single thickness and stops just past the vertical piece at the hip; the Two-Ten’s horizontal strip carries all the way to the rear bumper in a down-swept arc; and the Bel Air has a double sweep spear forward of the vertical piece. You’ll have to peek inside at the upholstery to identify a Delray Coupe, however…
If you compare the two-tone paint treatment seen in this dealer brochure to that of our specimen car, you’ll notice a difference in how the colors are broken up – our subject car has been repainted somewhere along the line to look like a Bel Air. Even so, either way looks classy to my eyes.
The ’57 Chevys tend to get an upturned nose around these parts, primarily (I think) because these often heavily-modded cars have become the meat and potatoes of cruise-ins these days, and have ceased to be interesting simply because of their ubiquity. This car, on the other hand, appeals to me because it’s not a Bel Air, it’s not a ’57, and it *is* fairly close to what the young family in the ad above actually would have driven in the mid-late 1950s.
So how about you? What options and choices would you like to see brought back to contemporary cars?
Good read, great illustrations. The color charts are super. Probably the only one I don’t recall every seeing is the plum/ivory… I’m guessing not real popular
Well, it ain’t exactly purty, but it was plum and ivory.
Just for you, here’s an ivory/dusk plum ’56 that was for sale on ebay awhile back.
I like it! I’d lose the sun visor, though.
I was going to say 2 tone paint should be an option today,not just painting the roof a different colour but the body also.Then again I’m not so sure it would work on today’s jelly bean shaped cars.I love the green and blue 2 tones in the brochure for some reason 56 Chevys are lots rarer than 55s & 57s in magazines and shows in the UK
I’m sure I remember a kit of a “black widow” 56 which could be built as a miser’s special or a V8 hot rod in the 60’s.Thanks for a great read and photos
’56 was a slight recession year (nothing compared to ’58, however). Plus, the push was on so strong with the ’55’s, lots of for the time questionable financing, lots of effort to overheat an already good selling year . . . . that by the time the ’56’s came out the market was temporarily exhausted, or at least winded. Things picked up a bit in ’57, then collapsed heavily in ’58.
Never could figure out the love for the ’57’s. Ok, fuel injection, for all the dozen cars or so that actually got it. To me, the ’57’s tie with the ’59’s for the ugliest Chevrolet’s of the decade, with the added negative of going downhill in looks while still being conservative. At least the ’59’s swung for the fences.
Thanks Syke,the 59 Chevy was a thing of beauty compared to the bloated 58,GM dropped the ball that year the Buick,Olds & Pontiac werealso a step back styling wise.
I recall reading the account of one of the stylists who worked on the ’57 Chevy. He considered it a weak rehash. The ’57 Ford and Plymouth made considerable inroads on Chevy in new car sales that year, with Ford outselling Chevy for the first time since 1935.
I’d like to see real color make a comeback. Something besides beige/silver/gray beigey-grey, silver-gray.
I don’t think it’s going to happen though. It complicates the assembly process. And if we have a choice of exterior color we might want more choices with interior colors as well, further complicating the assembly process and adding cost to the producer.
I’ve noticed the lack of green as a color choice with many cars.
I’m totally with you in respect to green. When was the last time you saw a new green car? (And I’m talking emerald or forrest green, not sea foam or lime). I actually pointed this out on Jim Klein’s Audi S4 COAL last week. Green is so perfect.
I’ve seen dark green 2014 Cruzes and Rav4s; I almost wonder if it’s too soon to bring it back since dark green was the “it” color of the late ’90s and, at least outside magically car-preserving Oregon, so many ugly old beaters are dark green.
“Lack of choice in contemporary automotive offerings.” Say again? You have full-size…intermediates…compacts…subcompacts…kei-car…crossovers…minivans…pickups…crew-cab pickups…small(er) pickups…SUVs…compact SUVs. How much choice do you WANT?
In the 1950s, there was ONE platform…two, over at Ford, where they sneaked the Thunderbird under the nose of McNamara and the Whiz Kids. Okay, and the Corvette…similar deal at Chevy. Those, at that time, were market experiments.
There was ONE CAR. Endless levels of TRIM…but just one car. Several engines and transmissions…but one car.
A number of body styles….but just one car. If you were hep and wanted something different, you had to content yourself with a Nomad…a fair amount different, but the same front fenders and dimensions as Dad’s Bel Air.
ONE CAR.
Exactly. Also, while everyone complains that modern cars all look the same, I would say that in the aggregate, mass market cars of any given era tend to took pretty similar (and those that don’t, while distinct, are not necessarily different in a good way.) Some pull it off better than others, but it’s usually a matter of detail, putting the best spin on common themes. Cars from different eras stand out not because they necessarily looked different in their time, but because they’re now so far from moved from their native era that they immediately “pop” next to surrounding cars of different aesthetic periods.
I would counter that today it’s one car, different sizes. Size is about all the difference there is between any given platform now. Otherwise it’s mandatory automatic – transverse I4/V6 – FWD/(pointless)AWD, and a choice of white silver or black.
Today it’s 3 different sizes of sedans, 3 different sizes of CUVs based on the sedans. Not much different than the “one car” days of different wheelbases for the same car really.
I don’t know that I would agree with that. It’s true that the “package” is somewhat standardized, but when has it not been? In 1956, you had a choice…of rear-wheel-drive, or walking. That’s it.
Front engine, RWD. You could get a six or a V8…and that was that. Two engine designs. Three-speed manual or a new automatic, most likely a two-speed.
Today, the layout is somewhat the same; but the size difference and weight difference and the fact that these different-sized models were engineered separately…gives them somewhat unique feels. Not grossly-different feels; everything feels numb with electric power steering. But there is subtle differences.
Just as there was between brands in years past.
OK, if there is so much choice today, then give me a 2014 Chrysler 300C convertible, black with red interior. And a 300-based Town and Country wagon.
Not everyone wants crossovers (comb-overs?), trucks or SUVs. If you want a CAR, hope you like four-door sedans…
All right.
Which is the more “significant” choice: All-wheel-drive, or interior colors?
Longitudinal layout, or vinyl roofs?
Paint, or size…and load capacity, and layout to carry it?
I feel your pain. But what’s come to be, in terms of paint and color…is pretty much what the market demands.
In the 1920s, Old Henry declared that he’d offer any color, as long as it was black. Earl Scheib rose to that challenge.
Who is rising to the threat of Gray Upholstry, today?
Thank you for making my morning. It’s so wonderful to see a fifties car that isn’t a wannabe fugitive from the cruise scenes in “American Graffiti”.
I’m guessing most of your illustrations come from the dealer’s floor catalog – that big, three-ring bindered book that was usually found on a pedestal in the showroom and gave a complete overview of the marque’s lineup for the year. I had the ’58-63 books for decades, finally sold them about five years ago. For MAJOR money, well above what I thought I was going to get for them.
Not to disagree with your speculation.
BUT…I noticed that the Nomad didn’t appear on the “complete” model list.
Nor the Sedan Delivery; but that’s understandable – a commercial vehicle. But, how “complete” can the list be without the halo car?
I’m working on very foggy memory here, but I believe that’s only one page of a two-page spread for the line drawings of the individual models. If you look again, the Bel Air two-door hardtop, four-door hardtop, convertible and Nomad wagon are all missing. And I think there was also a Bel Air four door wagon back then, too.
By the way, these dealer floor catalogs are where you also got to see all those cheap, tacky bolt-on accessories (port holes, fender skirts, fake second antennas, etc.) that everybody insists on putting on to their restorations nowadays; giving the false impression that they were incredibly popular back then. They weren’t. My father used to laugh at the pieces, and had such few orders that he didn’t have the parts department keep them on the shelf.
It’s from the 1956 Brochure; the Nomad gets its own full page right next to this page: http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1956_Chevrolet/1956_Chevrolet_Brochure/dirindex.html
Thanks. That brings back a lot of models that I’d forgotten about – like the 210 four door hardtop. I don’t think that one lasted too long.
This does show a lot about my point further down regarding “upselling”. The models Chevrolet really wanted to see go out the door get individual color pages. All the rest (the cheap cars, for the most part) get a small line drawing where the company (almost grudgingly) admits to their existence.
The cheap 210 being called the Delray is something that I never noticed as a kid. In ’58 it became the bottom-of-the-line model, for one year only.
Number of platforms / sizes is certainly more abundant these days and choice of color is rather stunted.
I see Ed’s point, but maybe from a different angle. What happened to a la carte options? There was a time you could buy power windows only, without it also coming with cruise control, power seats, etc. By the time the manufacturer made the vehicle truly special for the owner it may have been one of three optioned a certain way despite there having been 750k of that nameplate produced that year.
Another difference is the number of available drivetrains. There were a lot more available in ’56, ’66, and even in ’76 in many cars.
How about price? Ed said you could get a new mid-range ’56 for $16k adjusted; that was the large car (one size available) – I’ve seen new Focus’s at around $20k and it’s the small one.
Yes, I know production efficiency is likely the driving force for the differences, but the cost has been boring uniformity.
What happened? Pressure to control costs. Three times since the 1950s, Detroit has been through the wringer to control costs and keep price competitive with much-cheaper foreign manufacturers.
A la carte costs a LOT. Lots of handling; lots of tracking; lots of jiggering. When you’re one of only three brands, and they’re facing the same costs…doesn’t matter much. When there’s 15 brands, and only two others American…you bite the bullet; you go Just-In-Time and you have packages in blocks that can be easily managed.
Price? Airbags…fuel injection…engine-control computers. Alloys to reduce weight. Treatment to control rust. Not just the materials on all these…the RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT to bring them to fruition. Top-notch engineers don’t work cheap.
Given how well it’s all done, and how long the product lasts compared to 1950s cars…I’d say today’s cars are a steal. As to the wonderment why a full-size car costs what a compact today costs: Today, size denotes STATUS. Back then, there was only one size.
It doesn’t cost very much more to build a full-size car than a compact. The savings are in trim; in refinement; in profit margin. As the Studebaker Scotsman showed, a full-SIZE car could be sold at a compact price.
Not to mention that people want most of the stuff on cars today, yes I think that it was cool that you could get a heater delete and deluxe bumper guards, with a 3 on the tree, but today would you really not want a/c, or cruise or power windows, AM only radio?
That would be like wanting a new TV that has 3 channels and no remote, it would be cool for curiosity factor, but it would ware off quickly.
There was only one size within a particular make of car. There were different size cars, but if you wanted a bigger one, or smaller one you needed to buy a different make.
For example, the ’56 Buick special has a 122″ WB, whereas the ’56 Bel Air had a 115″ WB.
The hierarchy of makes was still somewhat intact, so that buying a Buick really was a step up, in every sense.
Drivetrain choices are much, much more abundant in Japan and Europe than they are here. The main reason is the cost of certification; in general, I think the EPA makes you certify each powertrain combination, which gets to be expensive and time-consuming. As a result, automakers are better off picking a couple of powertrains that they figure will be popular and sticking with those.
In Europe and Japan, type approval isn’t necessarily any cheaper, but offering a whole range of powertrains allows a single platform to cover a wider price spread and sell a lot more units. Because of fuel prices and taxable horsepower or CO2-based road taxes, there are going to be buyers who need or want a bigger car, but can’t easily afford to run a big engine, and some markets are more interested than others in diesel. So, you get four-cylinder (and increasingly three-cylinder) tax-savers, six-cylinder executive, and V8 prestige-building editions of cars like the BMW 5-Series.
As for comparative prices, I think inflation-adjusted figures need to be taken with a couple of grains of salt. Why? Two reasons:
* First, calculating comparative spending power is tricky, and the Consumer Price Index (which is what the BLS inflation calculator uses) is only one imperfect metric for that.
* Second, it’s important to remember that the price Ed is using for the calculation is a manufacturer’s suggested base price without options. In 1956, a huge amount of equipment we take for granted was at least theoretically optional. On a Chevrolet, that included both outside and inside rear-view mirrors; backup lights; interior courtesy lights; a heater; electric windshield wipers; windshield washers; and a padded dashboard — I think by ’56 turn signals were finally standard, but not very many years earlier, you could add those to the list as well. That’s not counting luxury options like power steering and power brakes, which are now standard even on most very cheap new cars, or air conditioning, which cost a good 35 percent or so of the base price of the car.
If you added a full load of options, you were looking at more like $3,500 sticker, not $1,900. Even a typically equipped car (no air, but a V-8, Powerglide, radio, heater, minor accessories, and maybe power steering) was going to sticker for more like $2,600-$2,700. Using the same CPI calculator Ed used, that’s more like $23K in today’s dollars, for a car bigger than but still not nearly as well-equipped (nor as fast or fuel-efficient, to say nothing of safety) as a modern U.S.-market Focus.
Regarding drive train choices in Europe: Keep in mind tha the whole auto business is done very differently there and here. In Europe, you go to the dealer, take a test drive, and then order exactly what you want. A few weeks later, it’s delivered. Of course, there is some inventory too, but they’ll be configured in only the most popular way.
In the US, the industry is all about efficiency on a grand scale: cars sold instantly from inventory, and in as few variations as possible. The reduction of trim levels, models and most of all power train choices has greatly reduced choice, but really is the key to keeping prices down.
Or should I say keeping profits up. As we’re seeing again now, the NA market is BY FAR the most profitable one, partly because it’s large, but most of all because manufacturing costs are kept low by cranking the very large and efficient factories three shifts a day and not having to build many variations.
For instance, Toyota and Honda do/have made made 90-100%of their global profits in the US. The European market sucks, the Japanese market is overly competitive and complicated, with many overlapping brands and dealer groups, and next to no margins. China has never delivered the kind of really huge profits NA does/can. It too is still rather fragmented, and getting more competitive now. Brazil had huge profit margins, but they’re rapidly dwindling.
The NA model is very good to the automakers, and they have no desire to go back to the old ways. If they could, they’d sell even fewer variations. It’s much easier that way for them, and more profitable.
That’s all certainly true. You can, sort of, theoretically order a car equipped as you want here, but in my experience a fair number of dealers won’t do it at all, a) because they’re not keen on the prospect of being stuck with somebody’s weird one-off and more importantly b) because they’re staring nervously at their floorplan financing numbers for current inventory and really want to pressure customers into clearing it out. The best you can usually manage (which I did when I got my current car) is to find a salesman who’s willing to look around through the local dealers to see if somebody else has a car equipped the way you want it and do some kind of quid pro quo.
I had a hell of a time just getting my car with the nominally standard manual transmission (several dealers told me flatly that they didn’t have any that way and would not order it for me no matter what) and without the sunroof/CD changer package, which I told the salesman I wouldn’t take even if they gave it to me for free.
Ditto that. When I bought my ’13 Beetle convertible, I wanted TDI and a manual. I think I found maybe three in the US, none close, and none in the color combo I wanted – the dealer confirmed that when they looked, too.
So I ordered one and three months later took delivery.
Regarding price: as auwm said, inflation calculators do not give a complete picture. Purchasing power was lower, the further back one goes from about 1970. And cars wore out faster. Automobile expenses were generally higher, as a percentage of household income, if one wanted to have a reasonably nice car. That meant having to buy new every 3-5 years. One can keep a car 2-3 times as long, and it still looks decent and works reliably. There was a reason car loans gradually increased in length. No bank in their right mind would have made a car loan for 60 or 72 months, just based on the depreciation.
In looking at car prices going back numerous decades, it’s better to see what percentage of annual household income a car cost, because that’s a better way to gauge its relative affordability.
I’ll take and “India Ivory/Pinecrest Green” Delray coupe please. You meant the waffle-pattern vinyl interior when you said, “You’ll have to peak inside at the upholstery to identify a Delray Coupe”. Collectible Automobile Magazine did a great piece on that car a few issues ago. Amazing how “exciting” vinyl interiors were.
As for what I’d like to see make a comeback in new cars, obviously more exterior and interior color option. Two-tone combinations would be nice. I’d also like to see lower belt lines and sedans that aren’t as tall as crossovers. Although they don’t sell well, more inexpensive coupe models would add some excitement to many automaker’s lineups.
Don’t be too quick to love the low-line models from back then. Maybe there was more of a purity of line in the design, but those cars were set up that way specifically to make you want to buy the high end model. After all, it was only a few dollars more, but was a much more comfortable automobile.
The manufacturer’s had all sorts of ways to remind you of what a cheap bastard you were if you insisted on buying one of the low line models: Really ugly rubber floor mat for the entire interior that seemed to never want to come clean, 40’s era vacuum wipers that momentarily stopped working when you pushed on the gas (never mind the summer downpour you were trying to drive in) when the high line models got two-speed electric wipers that worked continuously, driver’s-side-only or a complete lack of sun visors, no armrests.
We always talk about how in the 60’s Detroit deliberately built cheap small cars to try and force the customer into a nicer, big car. This was not a new strategy. The only difference in the fifties is that you weren’t changing sizes, just level of comfort.
I rode in a lot of trade-in low end cars as a child, and a few new Chevy’s, too. Trust me, compared to Bel Airs and Impalas, these were “penalty boxes”. A penalty for being cheap.
I agree with what you’ve said, but there is another way of looking at it. People buying a new car in the ’50s may have started driving in the ’20/’30s. They were quite used to vacuum wipers that stopped when you pushed on the gas pedal. (AMC was still using vacuum wipers into the late ’60s early ’70s) They might not have felt armrests or visors were really necessities.
In our own time, depending on one’s age, we might still think power windows are a “luxury” but it’s harder to find roll up windows because people who’ve come of age in the past decade or so think they are necessities. We may feel ABS or stability control are not really worth the extra money, but there’s little out there that doesn’t have ABS, and stability control will become a “necessity” as well in a few years.
To modern eyes the low line cars of the ’50s may strike us as penalty boxes, but to their original owners, they may have been very nice -within the context of their own driving experience.
What a nice find, I agree-it’s nice to find a ’56 Chevy that is still stock. My parents had a two-tone 210 like this, except theirs was the india ivory/nassau blue combination with the 6 cylinder engine. It’s interesting to note that even back then the practice of using descriptive language for the colors was well established.
Why is the suburban owner of that new Chebby trying to run over a motorcycle cop? The dog-walking neighbors are right to be alarmed.
The reason why the guy’s is going so fast is that his wife is about to have a baby, as shown by the stork on top of the ad.
It’s interesting that the illustration uses white trails coming off the tires to show speed.
1956 was the peak year of births from the baby boom. Hence the theme in the ad: a common occurrence, no doubt.
Flip through any magazine from that era and there are a ton of ads for diapers, cribs, toys, kids’ clothes, washing machines to handle all that laundry…all the trappings of an exploding population.
The expectant mother in the ad looks much more serene than the new dad, who seems to show signs of having ingested some bad shrimp. Notice that there’s no car seat in the car…baby’s going to ride on the package shelf above the rear seat, just like we all did as kids. 😛
Of the Tri-Fives, the ’56 seems to be the “sleeper” and my personal favorite.
If the police motorman wasn’t there you would assume he was hurrying home from a bad seafood buffet….
I don’t want the stinky kid dirtying up my upholstery….put him in the trunk, wedge the little bastard up against the spare, he’ll be alright….
Tri-Fives like this one are car porn here.
I’ve been this way since the age of ten…long long time ago. I’d honestly take that ’56 and re-do it with the features I’d want in a new car, then polish that black & white paint job and drive it!
I actually think that would be the way to go.
I get the purists – an un-modded car, set up just like God and Chevrolet wanted them in 1956. But there’s so much since then that’s practical – everything from engine controls that come close to doubling gas mileage; to disk brakes that cut stopping distance in half. Seats that hold you like seats should – not like church pews. Gauges…high-tech speedometers…alternator to power it all..the list goes on.
I’m not really a fan of the 1956s. They’re rare, now; but part of the reason was that the designers phoned it in. The 1955 was their full-on effort; the 1957 an intense patch-job to sell a body in its last year. A tremendously successful effort. The 1956 lacks inspiration compared to either of the other two.
But, it would be an excellent starting point. Take a barn or field find…one with the engine yanked would be perfect. From there…put in the former Buick V6 from one or the other of its modern manifestations; a modern automatic…or, even a four-speed. Wiring harness with it…to make the engine controls work, you might need the modern electronic speedometer, hidden under the dash.
Then…modern seating. Is Recaro still around? I wouldn’t replace the steering column, although a case could be made for it. Three-point harness and maybe a cobbled collapsible steering-column section, ought to be adequate for safety.
What you have, then, is a fully-modern fuel-efficient daily driver, made of an abandoned shell.
I can see that being a worthwhile project…many of us had rather ride around in a gorgeous shape than actually have the entire ownership experience of the original car. The Porsche 928 piece the other day made me think: If I had the cash, I’d have a 928 and a Jaguar XJ, both with Chevy conversions…I want to be able to ride around in my favorite GT shape or my favorite sedan shape, with appropriate interiors…but not to have the original drivetrain pull me around. Blasphemy? Maybe. But I’d rather be blasphemous and rolling than a purist standing around waiting for a tow.
That’s long been a dream of mine, to find a great car from the ’40s or ’50s, and put a completely modern drivetrain under it (with modern a/c, etc.), keeping the outside looking as close to stock as possible.
There is one done like that locally, a 37-39 Pontiac 2 door sedan, on a GMC Envoy chassis believe it or not, with a 5.3 under the hood, a/c, leather, power everything, he even integrated the GMC’s trip computer and gauges into the dash
My 2 cents on the tri-5 designs; I like the ’56, though I’d say the ’55 is pretty good too. This may be sacrilege but I think the ’57 is ugly. Ford actually outsold Chevy in ’57, but you see many fewer of them today.
on contemporary cars, I’d love to see more two tones, and organic colours, lower door sills, manual locks and window cranks, vinyl upholstery, Carburetors(with manual choke!), headlights that I decide when to turn on, 15″ inch rims, i could go on and on about what i feel modern cars should have lol.
and how could i forget, Manual transmissions! real ones , with a third pedal and no TC, with a managable amount of gears , 4-5
Carburetors are gone for good – emissions requirements. So…no manual chokes.
I for one am glad they’re gone. FI has almost doubled gas mileage.
As for the others: are you willing to pay more for two-tone paint? You may want cars with mechanical window-winders. Few people do, today; and it’s cheaper to make the thing standard than to have a special mechanical system for the few who want it that way.
Styling, today, has become a function of airflow needs…reduce aerodynamic drag to get the last little bit of a mileage increase and meet CAFE. That’s pretty much why all cars look alike (with a few exceptions, such as the Cube).
It is what it is. Regulations today dictate much of automotive design; and public appetite controls what’s left.
your absolutely right, and that’s why i made a decision a long time ago to drive nothing newer than the late 80’s lol.
a friend of mine just had a rude awakening to how much has changed these last few years. He’s in the market for a new gm half ton pickup, regular cab,v6, stick, rubber floor and a vinyl 3 passenger bench seat. sales guy apparently chuckled at him, not gonna happen
You still can get all those things, except for a stick, though you might still be able to get the current generation truck like that, or wait for the Colorado/Canyon replacement, which should have a stick and regular cab available too.
When considering the replacement for Herbie, I briefly looked at 4wd trucks. Only Dodge offered a diesel / manual combination, and only in the 3/4 ton and larger trucks. Lightly optioned, it was in the low $40s. No thanks.
There was something on TTAC about the way switchgear and other commodity parts are sourced, that just ordering enough window switches for your entire production run is far more efficient and less expensive than trying to offer a manual option. My last crank-window car was a stripper rental Aveo about three years ago, and it may be the last contemprary car I ever drive with manual windows, or without remote entry, for that matter (aside from my own car whose keyfobs keep wearing out).
My dad and others of his generation would insist that power windows just add complication and are subject to breaking down when dirt and crud get into them…on the contrary, a sealed electrical assembly with a minscule failure rate that can be replaced by just popping in a new one, will be far more reliable than a hand crank, even in a work-truck situation. (Dad would be the type who wants a plain-Jane truck as Jer has described…when he went looking for one, he wound up with a Z71 with all the bells and whistles. Not much more expensive and no waiting for special order.)
FI alone is absolutely not what has made cars double in mileage. At best on a gas guzzler like my electra it might increase mileage about 2 mpg. There are people on the Buick forum I belong to that have switched to FI (aftermarket ones mind you) that report basically no dramatic change in fuel economy. The biggest change for them is no more cold or hot start issues. The real gains in economy have come from a combination of aerodynamics, overdrive transmissions and much better engine design overall heads, valve timing, ignition timing, roller valve trains and fuel injection etc..
I beg to differ.
I can’t PROVE it, not being an engineer…but one thing the “new normal” gas prices of over $3 a gallon did for me, was get me back into motorcycling. The last five years I’ve spent a fair amount of time considering bikes, reading tests, shopping, buying, finding some unsuitable and selling. While I’m getting to that magic age where seams start opening up and hinges creaking and binding.
What I found…was about a 30 percent increase in fuel mileage just for fuel injection. Look at the Suzuki TU 250, which gets about 80 miles a gallon…compared to the Honda Nighthawk 250, a twenty-year-old design which gets about 58.
Fuel injection’s been the only way to roll on cars now for almost 30 years; but cycle manufacturers are only beginning to get pressured into it, for tightening emissions standards. It’s not cheap; it means replacing a gravity fuel flow with a miniature high-pressure pump; it means a lot of electronics. It means the kick-starter has to go.
But it also means perfect drivability; it means far more miles a gallon.
We’ve seen the same on cars, too…aerodynamics and the lower-friction FWD setups contribute, but I cannot discount fuel injection.
You’re right; you can’t prove it, because it would have to be a true apples to apples comparison. Which is very difficult to find, actually. One can’t compare an older car (or bike) with a modern one, because much more than just fuel injection is involved in making modern ones more efficient. There is a host of things: variable valve timing, less internal friction, fuel shut-off on over-run; drivetrain differences, etc……
There’s no question that in an apples to apples comparison, FI wouldn’t begin to deliver a 30% improvement. The closest comparison is back when certain cars were available bothin FI and carb versions, like the ’57 Chevy, and numerous Mercedes and VW models.
Depending on what kind of driving regime, the direct efficiency gains were minimal, (5-15%). Certain driving regimes might take that higher, like lots of stop and go driving.
But on the highway, the difference was little to nothing, as one might well expect. There’s no intrinsic efficiency gain over a properly set-up carb at steady running. It takes X amount of gas; period. In fact, older carb cars could be set up to run lean, which isn’t even possible with a modern FI system.
Precision fuel delevery is just one reason port fuel injection(and direct injection) is king. The days of compromising intake manifolds to keep fuel vapor suspended in the air is a non-issue today. Port injection gave us tuned intake runners for better all around performance in MUCH smaller displacement engines. Plus electric Fuel injection really isn’t as complex as carb die hards believe. There’s few mechanical components and it takes the same knowhow to properly tune one.
I also agree that more efficient automatic transmissions and extra gears greatly contributed as well. Aerodynamics I’m not sold on, In my experience with MN12 Thunderbirds(cd .31) and Cougars(cd .38) there’s little to no difference in highway fuel economy with identical drivetrains. If I have to pay a 1-2 mpg peanalty at 80 mph for a car with a cd of .50+(an average 60s car) so be it.
I had a 98 honda superhawk. 1000 cc v twin about 105 carbed horses in fact the largest ones ever fitted to a honda. On the freeway 45mpg. I also had an 01 aprilia falco. 1000 cc vtwin about 115 horses around 38 mpg same trips.
For an apples to apples comparison look at the suzuki sv650 first few years were carbed then FI . Went from 45 to around 48 mpg.
A lot depends on the design, the quality, of the FI system itself.
You couldn’t compare a Bendix mechanical system from 1957 to an electronic system today.
It would take too long to explain…but I have seen a large jump on some smaller-displacement bikes as they went from carbs to FI.
I won’t get into specifics, because it’s all anecdotal. I can prove nothing; and I will persuade few. The story would fill a page; but I’ve seen a bit of real-world proof; and common-sense follows: Anything that reduces emissions, will probably result in higher fuel economy. Why? Less unburned fuel being dumped out the tailpipe.
Lower emissions do not necessarily equal higher fuel economy… Aftertreatment, for example (taken by itself) won’t help a bit, and in fact may hurt a little due to higher back pressure in the exhaust system.
Modern engines are very complex systems (heck, engines from 60 years ago were, too!), and there are a lot of variables at play. FI definitely could help, in some situations, not so much in others.
Catalytic converters do nothing.
True enough.
Okay…my hand is tipped. I’ll launch into the long story…cycles…are more specialized than are cars. There are cruisers; racers; gofer bikes for short hops.
There WAS America…Harley-Davidson, or as I call them, Hardly-Drivable. There’s the Japanese flotilla.
And, NOW…there’s the Chinese invasion.
Something to think about…the “scooter” involves more than just Vespas. “Touring” scooters are closer to faired-in, poorly-balanced road cycles.
Here’s where I come in. I had a BMW R1200GS…a big bike, the pinnacle; also USELESS in town. A dealer was advertising a Chinese scooter.
It was a Suzuki Burgman clone. A clone of a Burgman 400.
THAT, as it turns out, is a superior cycle/scooter hybrid. And the more I researched, the more I was intrigued. And the more this Chinese scooter, a Xingyue XY300-4, looked good.
Dealer let me test-ride. THAT…is RARE. Good ride.
I bought. For one-tenth the price of the BMW.
AND…this Xingyue 300…got 78 miles a gallon.
What is unique…is that, as the Tank Touring, a contract model some years earlier…this Xingyue/Tank only got 55 miles a gallon. MUCH lower, same scoot, lacking FI.
The story doesn’t end well. Chinese products are crap…not because Chinese people are deficient; but because the Chinese system doesn’t understand about continuous quality improvement or about satisfied customers.
This touring scoot…blew the engine under warranty. Took a YEAR to get it redone; I credit the dealer for his tenacity. He tossed his Xingyue franchise because of this.
And, once back…I hit a deer with the thing. At 65 mph. More parts I cannot replace…I guess I should be glad I wasn’t killed.
As for the BMW? Sold it. Had trouble getting ON it…and with the proceeds, I bought a Suzuki Burgman 650. Hybrid scooter/bike; step-through frame but frame-mounted engine; true gearbox but an automatic; high-speed potential and a triple-tree front fork. AND…fuel injection and 50 miles a gallon. Not bad for something that can cruise at 115 mph, and doesn’t need to be clutched.
Some of today’s option and trim packages are frustrating, and seem designed to push certain features someone is unlikely to care about in an effort to push up the average ticket.
Combining leather seats with a high end stereo, sunroof, and a navigation system is frustrating if all you really care about is one of these relatively pricy features. A package that combines something simple and fairly basic like cruise control with a pricy feature most of us could live without is another pain.
Ford’s Fusion packages engines with trim levels. As you move up line, you have to take a small displacement turbo, even if you would prefer a simpler larger displacement engine.
The demand that we take frustrating touch screen controls in all but the most basic cars is another pain that has spread like wildfire the last few years.
It’s hard to find nice quality cloth interiors anymore. They all seem designed to move you into leather. The leather in our 8 year old car looks – uh – under maintained. The 11 year old cloth in our Durango looks great and has only been spot cleaned. My 16 year old actually prefers the cloth over the leather in our other cars.
A bright kid, she discovered that cloth is cooler in summer, warmer in winter, and does all that without heated and cooled seats. The heated seats in one of our leather cars failed a few years ago, a problem that can’t happen in the Durango!
When I bought my ’13 Beetle convertible, I had exactly ONE trim level option to choose from (which I passed on). There were, however, quite a few combinations I could have put together for exterior and top colors. The interior colors were still very limited.
My wagon is very rare, in that it has cloth upholstery AND heated seats. It had to have been a special order. The T-Tec is quite nice.
over the years I have had to in line six classics that returned a good gasmileage even with carb(77 chevy nova(250ci)&75 dart(slant six)both got over 25mpg on highway&never had any major problems in afew years.a v6camry or accord would give you same gasmileage today with a lot more problems with high mileage(both nova&dart had more than 250k miles at the time of my ownership).
The peak in consumer choice for Chevrolet buyers had to be 1965.
Five separate platforms,
Full size Chevy
Chevelle
Chevy II
Corvair
Corvette
Just taking the full size,
Three trim levels as in 1956, plus two specials, SS and Caprice, like the Delray in ’56. The only body style missing is a two door wagon. Colors, 15 glorious colors, from Artesian Turquoise and Evening Orchid to Tuxedo Black. Nine two tones as well. Even the lowly Biscayne had a choicde of fawn, red or aqua inside, no gray. Impalas came in eight. Four engines and four transmissions round out the array of major options.
Very nice car. When I was a kid, a friend of my mother’s had a 56 Bel Air 2 door (can’t remember if a hardtop or a sedan), It was a two tone rust or copper and India Ivory – I don’t see that two tone listed. I have seen other ’56 Chevy’s this color, and it is a favorite of mine.
Not usually a fan of black and white cars, but these 1950s-era 2 tones make it work.
Last fall my wife and I were passing through Spokane, Washington and there was a ’56 Bel Air hardtop in that copper/light beige combination parked outside the restaurant all shined up. I’d never seen one in that combo before, it was a real head turner. Nice change from the usual red/white you see at shows.
I wonder if his rear bumper is off at the plating shop….
Give me a ’56. The ’56 was updated but it wasn’t done the way GM tended to, it actually got better looking rather than looking overstyled like so many other cars that would come out later. Only thing I don’t like on a ’56 is the tail lenses, I’d rather have a single solid cover like the ’55 rather than the bullets.
’55s and ’57s are nice cars, but they’re ubiquitous. I guess the ’56 was the right car at the wrong time.
My old man had one of these as his first car, a 210 2 door sedan with the V8 and 3 on the tree, he had it around 1963-64 or so.
I scanned a pic of it, but it came out too small, it was light blue over dark blue.