(first posted 10/16/2017) Our youngish readers might find it hard to believe that in the early 1960s the idea of a turbocharged production car was only slightly less fantastic than that of a pocket-size wireless flip phone. But in 1962, General Motors (Yes, there was a time when GM was a real innovator) rolled out not one but two such production passenger vehicles: the Corvair Monza Spyder, and the Oldsmobile Jetfire, America’s first turbocharged volume-production cars.
The Jetfire was essentially a 1962 F-85 Cutlass hardtop coupe (Holiday Coupe, in Olds-speak) with specific interior and exterior trim and, of course, a big surprise under the hood. Oldsmobile partnered with the Garrett Corporation – then, a leading manufacturer of industrial turbochargers – and began working alongside engineers in Garrett’s newly-formed AiResearch department, a specialist division set up to develop turbochargers for the automotive industry. Together they developed a small diameter turbo and associated system exclusively for the Jetfire.
Weighing some 35 lbs., Jetfire’s bolt-on kit was based around a Garrett T05 turbocharger, which attached to the engine’s intake manifold as a carburetor normally would. A specially developed, single-barrel Rochester sidedraft carb sat ahead of the turbo in a draw-through configuration. Oldsmobile then fitted its higher-compression (10.25:1) 215ci V8 with beefed-up pistons, connecting rods and main bearings, as well as a specially modified distributor, coil, fuel pump, and radiator. The transmission was also reinforced.
Remember, these were the days before electronic knock sensors; to counteract detonation, Oldsmobile employed a novel fluid injection system using “Turbo Rocket Fluid” (Best. Accessory. Name. Ever.), a cocktail of distilled water, methanol, and rust inhibitor. When the turbo operated it pressurized the system’s tank, which caused Turbo-Rocket Fluid to squirt into the intake system between the carb and the turbocharger, thus cooling the intake charge through heat absorption. While the system did work, however crudely, the contents of the 5-quart (4.7 L) reservoir lasted about 225 miles in average driving. When it ran low, an ‘Add Fluid’ light illuminated on the car’s console-mounted boost gauge, whose needle swung between Economy and Power modes just like a fuel-economy vacuum gauge. When it ran out completely, a float-and-valve assembly in the system would shut to bypass the turbo and help preserve the engine. The setup also included redundant protection: The wastegate itself, for instance, had twin diaphragms. If those failed, the fluid-reservoir cap would pop off as a final measure to prevent an overboost situation.
The Jetfire’s Turbo Rocket V-8 was rated 215 horsepower–30 more than the naturally aspirated version and an impressive one horsepower per cubic inch–and developed a solid 300 lbs-ft. of torque at 3,200 RPM. Contemporary road tests revealed zero-to-60 times of approximately nine seconds, and a top speed of 110 MPH.
Oldsmobile sold 3,765 Jetfires in 1962 and 5,842 in 1963, but problems plagued the car. Ironically, a frequent owner complaint was “lack of power”. How could this be? Well, more than a few owners simply let the Turbo Rocket Fluid tank run dry, thus negating the turbo’s benefits. Other owners didn’t drive the car hard enough to generate boost (and thus lubricate the turbo’s compressor shaft), eventually leading to frozen turbocharger assemblies. The Turbo Rocket V-8 engine ran hot and experienced the same cooling issues as other Oldsmobile 215-cu.in. V-8s. Ultimately, however, the complexity of safety mechanisms tied to the fluid injection system helped seal the Jetfire’s fate.
Although based on the Cutlass coupe, the 1962 Jetfire was the only true hardtop in the F-85 line. Inside, it was pure Cutlass (with the exception of a standard console that featured the boost gauge). Jetfire exterior trim comprised an aluminum-inset side panel, dual chrome hood spears, and specific badging. A three-speed, column-shifted manual transmission was standard; for less than $200, buyers could choose either an optional four-speed manual or Hydra-Matic, both console-shifted. Also optional were power steering and power brakes, at $86 and $42.50, respectively.
Oddly, Oldsmobile made no significant alterations to the Jetfire’s suspension and chassis, which meant it handled like a regular Cutlass–which is to say, not terribly well. Standard rubber was 6.50 x 13, although 15-inch wheels were available at extra cost.
Like its Pontiac and Buick cousins, Jetfire grew for 1963: A restyling added four inches of length and two inches of width, and gave the Jetfire and its F-85 siblings a close family resemblance to the full-size 88s. Unfortunately, handling had not improved, and most contemporary reviews were less than kind.
While 1963 would be the Jetfire’s final year, Oldsmobile did not abandon the idea of a high-performance intermediate. The following year saw the debut of a larger F-85 — now a true intermediate — that would spawn the muscular and legendary 4-4-2.
The Jetfire story, however, was not yet over. In 1965, in response to myriad problems, General Motors offered Jetfire owners a deal: At no charge to them, Oldsmobile dealers would remove the troublesome fluid-injected turbocharging system and replace it with a four-barrel carburetor and conventional intake and exhaust manifolds. Most owners jumped at this opportunity, making a Jetfire with its original Turbo Rocket V-8 and turbocharger assembly a unicorn among unicorns today.
Like many visionaries, the 1962-63 Jetfire had the right idea too soon.
Interesting story, thank you. GM was an innovator at the time and has a respectable list of daring and innovative technical flourishes. Some, like the large FWD platform (Toronado etc) stuck, while others, like the IRS and rear transaxle of the intermediates did not.
I suspect that marketing logic, and not engineering necessity drove the introduction and production of such innovations. This turbo set up on a light, small engine is decades ahead of its time. But instead of promoting efficiency, it succumbed to the gee-whiz efforts of marketers, who were seeking product-differentiation over anything else.
BTW, I’ve read that standard winter-style windshield washer fluid is a good substitute for Turbo Rocket fluid. Frankly the absurd notion that owners would trek to the dealership to buy cases of jugs of that fluid for the life of the car is a misguided marketing effort if there ever was one.
Fortunately, the IRS and rear transaxle was limited to the Pontiac Tempest, among the Y-body compacts.
Now I have memories of My Cousin Vinny in my head…
Whenever I read “Pontiac Tempest” I hear Marisa Tomei’s voice in my head 🙂 – given that I’m Scottish and gave never even seen a Tempest, I suspect I’ve only ever heard her and Joe Pesci say those words together.
Ditto “positraction”.
Standard winter windshield washer fluid is methanol and water, usually with a blue dye. You could buy methanol yourself from the paint store and mix your own. I saw the Jetfire fluid formula somewhere…
You still could if you had a still-turbocharged Jetfire. I really liked the 1963 Olds F-85 styling, myself.
As to buying special fluid stuff for the life of the car, now there is urea fluid for diesel cars…
Yes but adblu is available where you fuel up at a seperate pump our tanker fleet requires it.
It’s not used up that quickly in cars either. Car and Driver tested a Golf TDi with the post-Dieselgate fix and noted that the only difference is that it needs a DEF refill just before rather than at a major service interval (something well past 50k miles iirc).
I drive a truck for a living and I have been in the “DEF era (error)” for close to 10 years.
You can figure 2-3% DEF vs diesel on average. For every 100 gallons of diesel; you’ll need 2-3 gallons DEF. You’ll use quite a bit more in the city because of idle time. I have found this to be true on ISX-15L Cummins in my road tractor all the way down to 6.7L Powerstroke in an F-250.
I was thinking about urea fluid, as well.
The main difference is my understanding that Turbo-Rocket Fluid was only available at dealerships, and there was no internet to spread around the formula. At least urea is widely available – one of the fuel stations near me has a special pump for it – and it’s become relatively inexpensive, at least compared to when it was first required in newer diesels. And a fill of urea lasts more than a mere 225 miles!
I may be wrong but I believe many of the larger chains of auto parts store also carry bottles of DEF as urea is also called.
I’ve never seen it sold out of a separate pump at a gasoline station/truck stop, but it is also not something I would be looking for, either.
I assure you that you can get DEF at most all truck stops, at the pump or you can buy jugs of it inside. And, some gas stations, usually the larger ones, also carry it.
You’re correct…I’ve seen DEF at most major auto parts stores, and even in the automotive section of Walmart.
As for at the pump, it’s usually at stations that cater to big rigs (such as those located along major truck routes) and/or in areas where there is a lot of truck traffic, due to the local economy.
I saw it at Menards in the St Louis area yesterday.
in high school in 1970 one class had a older freshman he had one of theses and philly cops were threating him because they claimed he added turbo. this was pre emission testing and the state of PA did not allow many exhaust mods, even my mechanic hadearly 60 chevrolet that came with the rare option lake pipes he was a lisenced state inspection mechanic and when state trooper check his inspection book he had to prove by vin . pennsylvania is really anil on cars and trucks rules
i was very happy fl had no inspection required
Imperialist, this is a great article chock full of information about the Jetfire. Thanks. Ontario Mike, your comments are well said. My dentist at the time (since retired) drove the F85 coupe. No Jetfire package. His was outfitted with leather seating and an automatic and air conditioning. He loved the car and hated to retire it when it was just beyond practical use for him. He must have kept the car for ten years and almost 200,000 miles. He liked the neat size of the vehicle. As for the handling, he was not a Barney Oldfield, o handling on his F85 suited him just fine. Thanks again, men!
200k on a 215 alum V8 would have been an extremely rare occurrence back then!
This is a fascinating car on several levels. Obviously the Turbo V8. That primal force that has driven engineers to look for the benefits of forced induction without the mechanical drag of a supercharger has been strong over the decades. I wonder if this latest crop of turbo designs will finally be satisfactory for daily transport. Because in my view none of them really have been up to now. The Rube Goldberg setup of this car shows the inherent issues with turbos that had either not existed or had been solved 30 years earlier with superchargers.
And is not this 62 Jetfire the best looking Y body ever built? With a decent powertrain (that did not involve that aluminum 215 or a Roto Hydramatic) this car could have become legendary.
Forced induction without drag, yes, but also the turbo’s benefits of recovering some of the energy lost in the thermal expansion of exhaust gases. I recall this works in diesels best and only benefits gasoline engines when they are developing pressure, not vacuum, in the intake manifold.
“I recall this works in diesels best and only benefits gasoline engines when they are developing pressure, not vacuum, in the intake manifold.”
That makes some sense. Turbos were adopted early and have been used continuously in diesel applications of all kinds. But automotive applications (at least the ones of my experience) have been severely compromised in both drivability and durability. It has been the rare automotive turbo that was pleasant to drive in most circumstances as well as long-lived. It seems that the only times the turbo has received relatively widespread acceptance in autos has been in response to CAFE regulations that put a premium on minimal displacement. By the 90s when everyone got around the learning curve and could design naturally aspirated engines that made good power and torque, the turbo died in American cars (except for a few exotics). It has made a comeback with the new tightening of CAFE regs. I have my doubts that this generation will prove more satisfactory than the last, but I have no direct experience with them and could be wrong.
Certainly forced induction works better and vastly easier in diesels.That’s because pre-detonation simply is impossible in a diesel, so there’s just about no upper limit to how much boost a diesel can be given. Which explains why modern small diesels have so much torque. Bring on the boost! Also, diesel exhaust is much cooler than gasoline exhaust, which minimizes the challenges of heat to the turbo.
Gas engines are tricky to boost, as pre-detonation is a huge problem and will of course damage an engine. That applies to both with a supercharger or turbo. Superchargers are easier, because the amount of boost can be carefully controlled by the speed they are set up to run at. But that’s not possible with turbo, as they just want to spin faster and faster in the exhaust stream.
The Jetfire and Monza Spyder were developed before the modern turbo controls were developed. The engineers at Chevrolet and Olds had a real challenge, and they went about it in two different ways.
Obviously, Chevy did it successfully and Olds didn’t. Frankly, the Jetfire engine was a pretty major bomb. It only made 30 more hp than the four-barrel version, for all that complexity, or about a 20% increase. The Spyder got a solid 50% increase in power and it never had any real issues, and was built in substantial numbers for quite a few years.
Modern gas turbo engines have drastically improved controls and technology, and have long overcome the issues that plagued these first generation engines as well as the second generation from the 80s.
VW has built millions of turbo fours for going on 20 years now, and the reliability record is pretty good, all things considered. One doesn’t really hear much about issues with modern turbo gas engines, for the most part.
Good to know. I just bought a 2011 Juke with a manual transmission, and while I love it and can’t stay out of the boost I still cringe at the idea of replacing the turbo to the tune of $2000 or more.
I’m hoping the reliability has increased to where the turbo is as durable as any other component anymore instead of the old horror stories like the Saab guys who replaced them with alarming regularity.
One big dilemma of the simpler Monza Spyder arrangement is that it wasn’t compatible with automatic transmission, since it didn’t have a wastegate to prevent overboost during shifts. Obviously a big problem given the tastes of American buyers!
I don’t think that was any real issue, given the Spyder’s mission. In the early 60s, essentially everyone still knew how to drive a standard transmission car, and import cars/sports cars invariably had sticks. The Spyder was aimed squarely at that part of the market.
it had never occurred to me to think that the lack of an automatic negatively impacted the Spyder’s sales. Anyway, who cared? If you wanted an automatic Corvair, you just bought a Monza.
Now the Jetfire was clearly in a different segment of the market. Nobody who had serious sporting interest/ambitions would touch it, as it handled quite poorly. It was a novelty. And the novelty wore off very quickly.
The Corvair Spyder and Corsa were in a totally different league. They functioned well, gave the Corvair a very substantial performance boost, and it handled well, within the limits of the Corvair’s well-known traits. But it really was accepted as an American sports car at the time.
JPC: “And is not this 62 Jetfire the best looking Y body ever built?”
It is a beauty. A co-worker in my HS job had a red 62 Cutlass coupe in red on red with the auto floor shift and buckets – pretty similar to the Jetfire featured. This car was gorgeous as well and the interior luxurious for a compact. The car was four years old when I met her but still looked contemporary among the Mustangs and other newer cars in the parking lot. The 63 was a disastrous re-style, fixed with the handsome new 64. Another looker was the 62 Buick Skylar hardtop coupe.
Interesting…I never knew that GM offered to retrofit all of these engines at no charge to the owner, and two to three years after they were built, no less. I’d have to think that was an unusual move for the time, although not unheard of.
What fascinates me is that GM came out with this engine at the same time as the Corvair Spyder turbo, yet the engineers took very different paths to control detonation. The Corvair turbo engine used a lower compression ratio than in the naturally aspirated version, so as not to require fluid injection. I also recall reading somewhere that an automatic transmission wasn’t offered with the turbo in the Corvair, to further prevent problems.
Still, it amazes me that they attempted a compression ratio of 10.25:1 with a turbo, and without benefit of sensors, onboard computers and fuel injection!
I had not known about the retrofit either. Oldsmobile was a very engineering-centric place in the early 1960s. This was a great idea in the way the Bendix Electrojector was a great idea at Chrysler a few years earlier (or Lean Burn a few years later). Great on paper but not-so-great in the real world given the tech available. The Chevrolet approach seems more in tune with that pesky real world. The Chevrolet approach was also likely cheaper, which would be necessary for a less expensive car (which would be expected to sell in larger volumes).
I applaud the Olds engineers for solving (kind of) the technical issues that this engine raised. But they learned their lesson for the next step when they solved the problem with cheap, durable cubic inches in the 330 V8.
It wasn’t the first time that GM offered to put a simple proven 4bbl carb on a vehicle they had tried out something new and fancy. The first I’m aware of was the fuel injected Chevy in the 50’s.
I’ve never heard that. Can you give a citation?
The Rochester FI system was offered continuously from 1957 through 1967, and although I’ve read about some owners choosing to ditch it, it was certainly nothing like the Jetfire, where almost all of them were converted back, because its turbo system was too problematic.
Perhaps a few dealers offered to replace the FI system, possibly for free. But certainly not on any scale. And the Rochester FI never had any real issues; it was just that some owners and mechanics didn’t bother to learn how to work on it. It’s not really complicated, just new.
He may be thinking of Chrysler. In the late 1950s a handful of Chrysler Corp. cars were fitted with the Bendix Electrojector system and nearly all were retrofitted with carbs. (There is a ’58 DeSoto Adventurer running around which has had its Electrojector system restored.)
AMC was going to use the Bendix system on the ’57 Rebel but backed out at the last minute due to technical problems. The Rebel owner’s manual was printed with a detailed description of how the fuel injection system worked.
https://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/electrojector.html
I remember reading about that restored FI Desoto some years ago. What an absolutely gorgeous car.
Yes on the Corvair; the story is that GM found that the Spyder turbo setup would destructively overboost during the sole Powerglide upshift. Which is interesting because one of the other knocks on the Spyder is that the boost doesn’t really come on until you get the revs up a lot — but the Corvair PG upshifts early unless you completely floor it. Those two things seem inconsistent — but I suppose even if the boost problem was mostly something that happened with an upshift at or close to WOT, GM didn’t want to see engines grenading in customer hands.
If you look at the backside of a Spyder instrument cluster, you can see that the space for a PG shift quadrant was marked off, and provision made to bolt the shifter on, in the same place the shift indicator appears on a regular first generation cluster. That means you can retrofit the Spyder cluster to a non turbo PG car without too much trouble.
Daimler-Benz and BMW supercharged aircraft engines during WWII both used a 50-50 methanol/water (plus a little lubricant) injection mixture (“MW50”) to increase power for take-off and emergency use at low to medium altitudes (the thinner, colder air at altitude made it less effective there). The methanol cooled the intake charge, decreasing the likelihood of detonation, and had the added benefit of serving as antifreeze for the mixture at higher altitudes. I suspect that GM might have gotten the idea here. Of course, Messerschmidt Bf 109’s and Focke-Wulf FW 190’s could go a little farther-and higher-on a tank than these cars could.
I used to fly WWII-era airplanes, with big Pratt & Whitney radial piston engines. These were equipped with “water injection”, which used a similar 50% methanol/water fluid injection system. According to Pratt & Whitney, developers of the technology, the benefits thereof were discovered accidentally, during proving runs to validate their engines’ performance in heavy rain conditions. While purposely dumping copious amounts of water down the engine’s gullet, they noticed a much higher margin against pre-ignition during maximum power operations, and in fact were able to increase boosted manifold pressure to levels unobtainable without the added water. The addition of methanol was solely to keep the fluid from freezing during high altitude and/or winter operations, and, along with trace anti-corrosion additives, contributed virtually nothing to the safety and power benefit of the H²O.
Thanks, Scotty, for clearing this up. I seemed to recall that old John Deere engines had water injection, and doing a little Internet research I find that early Model D’s, in the 1930’s, did indeed have water injection to prevent detonation from the distillate fuels that were used then. Water was just obtained by tapping into the radiator, as this was pre-Prestone. That is assuming your radiator didn’t get a little low while you were out plowing and you filled it with water from the creek, in which case the line could get plugged up with tadpoles and little fish. The operator’s manual advised against this.
This is a neat story, but it’s a fable. The use of ADI had been kicking around for quite a while — it was tried during WW1, and Curtiss-Wright further developed the idea in the early ’30s. The Wright experiments were specifically focused on using water as an internal coolant as an alternative to enriching the mixture to reduce detonation, which worked well, but didn’t catch on immediately. Wright engineers presented the results at the 1933 SAE congress, so it was not an unknown idea among aviation engineers, it was just that prior to the war, broader availability of 87-octane fuel made it seem less necessary.
(Wright DID end up sort of stumbling back over the idea accidentally in 1935, not in the rain, but while experimenting with ways to limit carburetor icing by adding a water-alcohol mix to the fuel.)
Jet engines also used water injection for extra takeoff thrust. Obviously, a turbine isn’t subject to detonation, but critical temperature for the turbine blades is an issue, so the cooling effect of water injection allows more thrust while staying below the danger level.
I knew about the turbo Jetfires but not about the Turbo-Rocket fluid or the subsequent retrofit. Good info about a truly interesting GM car which was offered along with the similarly sized Pontiac Tempest and Buick Skylark of 1961-63.
A nearly-new Tempest sedan, red metallic, replaced the ’56 Ford wagon in our household, but not before I had departed the home for college and beyond. The car eventually became my brother’s ride. Dad had the lap belts removed (!) by the dealer, and ordered the black steel wheels painted body color — all, idiosyncratically suiting some inner need. The car had the automatic transmission; the shift lever was a sort of tab issuing at the driver’s right knee, from under the seat. When I learned that the manual had its knob and lever similarly situated, I was intrigued. Being a “standard-head,” I would have loved to experience that configuration.
A neat little car. The proportions mimicked a full-sized GM sedan — for advertising purposes, no doubt — so the car was unusually low. I found it pleasant to drive, with good visibility and a nice sense of its compact size and (relatively) light weight.
Additional reading about the Jetfire:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1962-1963-oldsmobile-f85-jetfire6.htm
It looks like Olds was really living up to it`s jet/rocket themes with this one!
Correction: the unique Tempest shift lever and quadrant were on the dashboard; here’s the ’62 interior: http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/t/tempest19.jpg
Thats what I call a paddle shifter.
My parents’ ’64 (IIRC) Corvair had a similar arrangement.
I think that era was a magical time for innovation. The Space Age had taken root. Soon Chrysler would begin making of one of the most fascinating cars ever made. The Chrysler Turbine car.
Interestingly enough, I am wearing a 1963 Bulova Accutron 214. This type of watch might have been worn by a Jetfire customer.
The Accutron was a watch that used a tuning fork, coils and a battery to run the watch getting rid of the main spring and a balance wheel. The watch did not tick but made a nice humming sound. To further enhance the space age/futuristic look, the watch did not have a crown on the side of the watch(like every other watch) instead it had a setting lever on the back of the watch.
Leon, my daily driver is a 1961 Accutron Spaceview. I love it when people think it’s a Swatch !
Ah the Spaceview. This and the Astronaut are two Accutrons that every collection must have.
My Spaceview is from 1970 and called the Spaceview T
Are you running your Accutron on Accucells or has it been phased to run fine on the 1.5v cells?
I had mine phased when I had them serviced at the watchmakers last year. No more accucells
Here is my Spaceview
I had mine phased as well.
The Bulova Accutron Spaceview was never intended for sale to consumers; rather just something jewelers and watch retailers could put on display in their stores so prospective buyers could see how different they were inside from conventional mechanical watches (quartz watches were still a decade away). But people loved the look and wanted to buy one for themselves, so Bulova put it into production and sold them to ordinary folks.
I’m still unclear whether the tuning-fork watches should be considered electronic or mechanical. In any case, it was the most accurate watch you could buy throughout most of the 1960s.
nope GM doesn’t innovate at all anymo………….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagneRide
I see your point, but keep in mind that MagneRide was first introduced 15 years ago!
Innovation is fun for car guys, but working, paying, customers can’t afford to be “beta testers”
Good NYT article on the Jetfire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/automobiles/collectibles/50-years-ago-the-turbocharger-was-a-disruptive-technology.html
The Turbo Jetfire is one of my favorite American vehicle engineering examples, because of the reach exceeds grasp tenets of it, as well as the guts to put this into a production vehicle. I’m a fan of ideas; even if they’re flawed. In hindsight, there are some major flaws and questions (ie: a 10.5:1 compression ratio is just way too high for that engine to survive any decent amount of time), and people mention the horsepower being somewhat disappointing), but look at the torque: 300 ft/ lbs at 3200 is approaching 1.5 ft lbs for every cubic inch. And that’s tire melting power that you can feel. I cannot see the stock tires holding that power, at all, so I wonder if the 9 second 0-60 isn’t because of poor traction.
Unfortunately, Oldsmobile (even with the Rocket engine) just weren’t known for performance ambitions yet; hence the turbos often not even being put into boost mode to lubricate the turbo compressor. And with the cheap price of gas back then, economy wasn’t an issue. The Jetfire was doomed right from the get go………but I love the ambition that GM had with this.
It’s one of the sexiest cars that GM ever built, I think. In some ways, the styling was a few years ahead of its time….it’s certainly sporty enough to compete with the eventual crop of Pony cars (Nova SS’s also come to mind), and the bucket seats and console shift seem to point to that. It’s got a ton of Corvair Monza in it, and also, it reminds me of a smaller Impala. I don’t know if this was considered a compact car in GM’s lineup, but based on the photos, it seems to be smaller in proportions and dimensions. I’ve always loved the swooping rear fender openings. Something tells me that in the Falcon’s transition to the Mustang, that Ford and Iacocca must have had the Jetfire in mind with a smaller four seat car with performance options (the Corvair also being a lesson in “don’t make the engine or car too different or exotic)……and learned also what not to do along the way: make the engine a simple, popular engine in the lineup already, which also insures that there’s the parts and the know-how in how to work on the engine. Olds was doing retrofits and some sort of warranty work, which is good, because any regular mechanic would have been baffled as to how to work on these things.
Nah — I don’t doubt you could smoke the tires with a high-rpm clutch drop, but right off the line, the torque output was similar to the normally aspirated Cutlass engine. Boost arrived relatively early, but even at WOT, it didn’t peak until a little over 2,000 rpm, so its low-speed acceleration was not really traction-limited. The torque increase, which was substantial, was concentrated in the mid-range. Oldsmobile wanted it to be readily accessible, but also to make it possible to stay out of the boost in normal driving.
Also, while Oldsmobile screwed up by not releasing a shop manual until months after the turbocharged cars went on sale, the turbo arrangement itself was not really that complicated, and it was all on top of the engine, so it wasn’t even particularly hard to reach. What was a headache was the fluid injection plumbing, which had a number of potential failure points and was complicated enough that you’d want to study the service manual before trying to troubleshoot it.
Back in the 70’s, when I bought hot Rod, Car Craft, Street Rodder, et. al. with regularity, Hot Rod ran a story about cheap tweaks and tricks for more horsepower.
The author went to a junkyard and bought a turbo setup from a Jetfire. He then blithely suggested that readers could do the same. NO mention of the complications. NO mention of dealers replacing units. NO mention of how relatively few were sold….
Cool car! Especially love that interior. Great story about which I was unfamiliar.
The car being passed in the commercial looks like a ponton Mercedes, but we probably shouldn’t read anything into that.
Here is one for sale in Indiana. Turbo not installed but included. call 219-241-8803
There is one for sale in Indiana. Check out Indiana http://www.AutoRv.com or call 219-241-8803.
Fun fact: The Jetfire block was used as the foundation of the Repco engine that powered Jack Brabham to a Formula One championship in 1966. The provenance of the block in that engine has been the subject of disagreement because of the assumption that “Oldsmobile aluminum block” referred to the more common Oldsmobile/Buick aluminum block with a different bolt pattern. But it was an Oldsmobile block after all, just a rare one.
A couple of very minor points in a good summation:
1. The boost controller didn’t have two diaphragms for redundancy. What moves the bypass valve is boost pressure on the primary diaphragm; boost pressure doesn’t act directly on the second diaphragm, which the shop manual says is there “to dampen rapid movement of the retainer and stem assembly.”
2. The assertions that the Jetfire could reach 110 or 112 mph were estimates, and would have required different gearing, as the engine wouldn’t pull much more than 4,50 or 4,600 rpm in top gear.
3. How long the fluid supply lasted depended greatly on driving style. If you drove very gently, it might only need to be topped up once or twice a year. Paradoxically, I think this contributed to more owners running the reservoir dry. It you consistently had to refill every fill-up or every other fill-up, you might have gotten in the habit of checking regularly, but if your fluid consumption was very low, it would be easier to forget about it until it ran out and you abruptly lost power. There was the low fluid warning light, but if you didn’t read the owner’s manual, you might not know what it meant, and it being located on a gauge on the console next to your right knee made it easy to miss.
Wasn’t a tachometer an option ?
I don’t think so, no.
I didn’t realize the Turbo-Rocket Fluid had to be replenished every 225 miles or so – that’s about twice as often as you needed to stop for fuel. How expensive was this stuff, and how long was it available after Jetfire production ceased? Was it ever sold in regular auto parts shops or service stations (as DEF is today), or just at Oldsmobile dealerships?
See my comment above from April. Unless you drove like a road tester, I can’t see having had to refill the fluid reservoir more than once every other fill-up of the gas tank, and if you drove relatively gently, a full reservoir might last months.
The fluid cost around 40 cents for a 28-ounce bottle and about $1.60 for a four-quart jug. I don’t think it was offered outside Oldsmobile dealerships, since these cars were pretty rare, and Olds made a big deal about not using substitute fluids. (There had been a number of attempts to sell aftermarket fluid injection setups for hot engines, and their fluids weren’t necessarily the same ratio of water to methanol; varying the ratio altered the antidetonant effect, which was potentially bad.)
I haven’t seen any discussion on why GM restyled/resized the BOP compacts for a single year. That must have been expensive for a unibody. Seems like height would have been a bigger customer complaint than length or width. They made the same mistake with Vega and the first Saturn–trying to keep the proportions of their big cars.
Lead times being what they are, this was something that was planned before launch, proposed by Pontiac, and was not related to customer response to the production cars. Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac were uneasy with the dimensions of the Y-body, which was related to the Corvair, and so they kept looking for ways to make it a little bigger without altering the structural hardpoints. The ’63 design was not an all-new shell: It was essentially a reskin, with new outer panels to get rid of the body-side sculpting, and a longer tail, but with the same wheelbase and probably most or all of the same cowl structure. Consequently, it probably wasn’t all that expensive, but the proportions didn’t look quite right.