AND WHEN YOU CALL MY NAMEJUST CALL ME INSANEPOCO LOCOJUST A LITTLE CRAZY
>>28739379fuck off with your ancient shitcan, boomer
>>28739379Ughh, a 59 Pontiac. It looks so much like the 59 Chevy but a huge amount of the thing is very different.
>>28739420the chevy has better rear but the pontiac has better front imo
I mean the body panels and frame are similiar but the interior, suspension, and drivetrain are all totally not.
>>28739379>>28739420This was a pretty infamous year for GM quality control although Chevy got the worst of it.
>>28739440Chevy built 3x as many cars as the other GM divisions which were sort of lower volume luxury cars. Yes the 59-60 Chevys were pretty bad. An uncle of mine worked a summer job at the Van Nuys plant in California in 59 where they were assembled and he saw plenty of shit going on there with workers making sloppy/retarded mistakes.
>>28739445My understanding is that Van Nuys always had ass workmanship, it was known to be bad in the 80s which was why GM eventually closed it down. I guess the laid-back SoCal vibe down there made everyone too slack and lazy.
>>28739440The 59 GM lineup was rushed to compete with the 57 Chryslers (in of themselves rushed) and funds may have been lacking due to company resources being diverted to the new 60 compact lineup.
>>28739379>INSANE POCO LOCO JUST A LITTLE CRAZYShould've been a bmw with holes in the bumper.
>>28739379>0-100 eventually kek goofy ahh boomer car getting gapped left right and centerget some wheel spacers faggot
>28739707back in my day, trolling meant something
Said it before and ill say it again 50s-60s cars look like drag queens. OTT flamboyant campiness and its tacky as fuck.
>>28739406>>28739834Fuck outta here riceburner broccoli head faggotsYou have dogshit taste
>>28739834Nobody ever disputed that point. That Pontiac is Connie Francis in car form.
>>28739925>implying that ancient hunk of scrap wouldn't get schooled by a ricer's 400 hp Civic
>>28739959>implying a Civic can even get to 400 hp
>>28739379Tranny car
>>28740025Anon...
>>28740121>>28739834>>28739946you can have it in black if you think the pink is too frilly
Pontiac only ever had two relevant decades anyway, the 60s and 80s.
>>28739379pass the Marty Robbins records this way
>>28739959>driving a land barge so you can be faster than civics on the streetsYou are brown. It's terminal.
TURN ME LOOSE, TURN ME LOOSE, I SAYTHIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE FELT THIS WAYGONNA GET A THOUSAND KICKS OR KISS A THOUSAND CHICKSSO TURN ME LOOSE
>>28740161what did they do in the 80s that anyone cared about?
>>28740322Something you lust over to this day.
>>28739379>that wheel fitment boomers btfoed
>>28740295The plymouth looks smaller than the pontiac.The pontiac just seems unnecessarily long and wide, but that's its beauty.
OH CAROL, I AM BUT A FOOLDARLING I LOVE YOUTHOUGH YOU TREAT ME CRUEL
>>28740326
>>28739379also don't get in an accident with that thing. look up 50s car accident photos if you dare.
>>28740388Pffft, pussy.
>>28739959This anon is 16 and brown.
>>28740388These were especially bad because of the X-frame chassis--Pontiac abandoned that and switched to a perimeter frame in 61.
>>28739440economic recession hit and everyone got tired of bloated late 50s excesses
>>28740324what's going on here?
>>28739379https://archive.4plebs.org/o/thread/28668312/You sneaky bastard, I knew it was the same OP from last month posting Gene & Eunice songs.
>>28740349It is. Pontiac went through a "wide-body" phase in the late 50's/early 60's. They are ridiculously wide.>>28739959Probably. But try fucking your girlfriend in the back of the civic...
>>28740735That lady looks at least 35.
>>28740750Sorry she's too old for you brah.
>>28740735>>28740766too bad Chrysler had horrible Q/C that year and those things rusted in half almost instantly
>>28740766that woman is at least in her 20s
>>28740766>>28740779you could up that in a Youtube video and someone will put in the comment section "oh hai that was my Grandma Vicky man she was hot back in the day. RIP Gran gone too soon from your four packs a day habit."
>>28740768Not really
>>28740356Olds is my fav from the 59 lineup
>>28739379such absurd looking proportions. the late 50s was a total shitshow.
>>28741423these didn't have X-frames so were more substantial than the 59 Chevy
>>28741423>>28740935>>28739379late 50s cars look better in person than in photos which never quite capture the visual effect of them
>>28741423my dad said when he was a kid these 56-61 cars were mostly old beaters owned by poor people and tended to look like that ie. rusted. yeah they were ugly and by the mid-60s already looked like museum pieces.
I agree that out of the '59 GM panic attack over Chrysler’s ‘57 models that Oldsmobile looked like a mess of left over ideas. To Oldsmobile’s credit in IMO the taillights were a nice bit of design continuity – I always think of the ‘57 model when I see the ‘59 taillights.It is rather strange that Oldsmobile returned to the parking light between the headlights in ‘67-‘68 which I think was a successful look on the Cutlass. The ‘72-‘73 Cadillac also had the parking light between the headlights, which the buying public seemed to like.
>>28741423Dished steering wheel although I don't think it was intended as a safety feature.
>>28741458if you were in an accident the chrome spokes would probably impale you
>>28741423My grandparents had a 59 Oldsmobile that my grandmother wrecked in a horrible mangling accident 18 months after they bought it, she was lucky to be alive. They replaced it with a 60 Oldsmobile, didn't like it for some reason and replaced that in a year with a 61 Chrysler New Yorker which they kept until 66. Surely the only people who bought a 61 Chrysler that weren't fleet customers or retired Chrysler employees.
>>28741464And?
>>28741464The rear passenger would get impaled on the steering wheel while the driver is crushed under the dashboard by the engine after it rams into the passenger compartment.
I can't understand for the life of me how Oldsmobile outsold Buick in 59 with such a grotesque look.
>>28741616Buick was still suffering from the fallback of bad Q/C in 55 because they overproduced cars that year and couldn't maintain proper build quality and they also had a reputation for being very thirsty due to the inefficient Dynaflow transmission.
>>28741616Traditionally car manufacturers only made the drivetrain and chassis, the body not strictly being taken into consideration. premium makes usually never made in-house bodies and outsourced those. Even Ford had Dodge Brothers produce Model T bodies for a period.Fisher was one of the biggest body outfits and supplied GM along with Fleetwood. GM acquired part ownership of Fisher in 1919 and it became a wholly owned subsidiary in 1926 but was still largely autonomous until the Reagan years. Fisher had the job of developing bodies for all GM passenger cars while the main company handled chassis and drivetrains.Developing bodies was a very involved process and as early as 1929 GM had made Pontiac share bodies with Chevy but on a longer wheelbase; this was done as a cost saving measure because Pontiac wasn't selling very well. Since GM panicked at the 57 Chrysler lineup and rushed the new 59 platform a year early, they decreed that everything would be based off the Buick bodyshell with the other divisions free to add their own custom touches to it.This was normal practice at the time where each division would have largely unique components especially because every car buyer older than 35 back then could remember the 1920s-30s when this was normal practice, but it was outdated and fated to end eventually, and so Roger Smith did exactly that in the 80s.
>>28741645Continued:GM was also more decentralized than other manufacturers with each division having a high degree of independence and until the Chevy-Pontiac body sharing had been essentially totally independent outfits. Over time and after the switch to more expensive all-steel bodies in the 1930s some cost saving was inevitable and so body shells were shared with everything else being largely independently engineered.The mid-sized A-bodies in 64 all had a common body and platform but the full sizers were not totally the same vehicle outside trim details until 77 and soon GM would also phase out separate divisional engines aside from Cadillac's.We also saw the reduction of basic body structures with the first attempt in 1950 with the B and C body sharing one basic structure. GM reverted to three body structures, but by 59, the A-body was eliminated and as per the 50 model all fullsize cars shared one basic body shell that could be stretched and changed to suit all cars from Chevy to Cadillac.
>>28741657>>28741645I know how things got that way, I just think GM were late to realize it was outdated. The 65 full sizers all had a common frame; did any oldfags at the time get butthurt about that? And that was when Fisher was still a separate entity.
>>28741667It's significant that GM didn't care about small cars having shared hardware but insisted on differentiating the full sizers. All the way into the 70s their brochures would read like "Vega Nova Camaro Chevelle Chevrolet" since they clearly wanted to imply that the B-bodies were the "real" Chevys.It duped a lot of people including my grandmother who bought a 67 Bel Air coupe instead of a Chevelle sedan that would have been a more practical family car.
>>28741623I had read some 50s car magazines comparing the Buick performance to the Olds, The Invicta tested (4 door Vista roof, 401 V8, Twin Turbine trans) ran 0-60 in 8.2 seconds and got an average of 17-19 mpg at 60 mph. The Olds (Super 88 2 door Scenicoupe, 394 V8, 3 speed Hydramatic) ran 0-60 in 11 to 13 seconds and got 10 to 13 mpg. Also the Buick cornered nearly flat, while the Olds attempted a pillow soft ride and lost most of its cornering ability. The large finned aluminium front brake drums gave Buicks the best brakes in the country, the smaller brakes on the Olds completely shut down on the 3rd stop from 60 mph (or 1 stop from 80 mph) and they considered it dangerous to drive. I personally like all the ’59 GM designs (Cadillac preferred '58) Buick the best.
>>28741697that doesn’t seem right, the Buicks were almost always the slowest because of their molasses transmissionsthat Invicta was running Chrysler 300 times and they were in no way as fast as the ChryslerTom McCahill got considerably slower times for that same Buick and he was the premier tester of the day
>>28741704>>28741697Check out Brookland's books on 50s Buick and Oldsmobile which quote contemporary magazine testers. It was surprising that Olds wasn't actually faster during that whole period and the best they ever got was a 58 Olds 98 that did 0-60 in 8.5 seconds. Anyone who thinks a 50s Buick was slow has never driven one or at least driven it properly. One thing to remember is that magazine testers tended to run them in Low instead of Drive. Any Buick after the Nailhead V8 came out in 53 had no difficulty topping 60 mph and eventually the big block engines could do 70-80 mph in Low; in Drive 1-2 seconds could be added but 0-60 tests were usually done in Low.In one 57 Century test they assured it could do 0-60 in 8 seconds and was one of the fastest domestic cars at the time. Tom McCahill reported getting 7.3 seconds out of a 63 Wildcat and the Buick Twin Turbine transmission improved over the years so that by 58-61 Buicks could average 17-19 mpg while Oldsmobiles of the time did considerably worse. I did get to drive one 62 Olds 98 coupe that was a real speed demon; the line workers who assembled it must have gotten a raise that week or something.
