Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!
18040 messages, Last post on Dec 07, 2009 at 9:15 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 02, 2009 7:45 am) Not always. To use one example, one of my old managers from when I worked at Denny's, once had a 1957 DeSoto Fireflite. This was 1965, so being a defunct brand with big tailfins, it was considered a major loser car. However, he was able to embarrass many cars that were considered much cooler. He ended up selling it and got a '57 Chevy convertible. It was a 283, but I dunno which one (I think thye had like 5-6 variations that year) He said that while the DeSoto wasn't nearly as cool back then, it would walk that Chevy like the dog it was. Speaking of old dog Chevies, here's an old Tom McCahill test of a 1959: http://www.xframechevy.com/MexIll-11-58.htm Now I know a 348 is a whole different beast from a smallblock, but why would it end up being this slow? With the 3x2 carbs and 3-speed turboglide, he was only getting 0-60 in 13.1 seconds. It mentions that he got 10.4 out of a 1958 Impala, but no details on which engine. I know the '59 Chevy was porking up a bit, but 13.1 seconds sounds more like what Consumer Reports might get out of a mid-60's 283/powerglide (they got 14.5 out of a '68 Impala 307/powerglide) |
|
|
I think that Chevy used the 283 (fuel injected) for NASCAR racing in 1959 because the 348 was a dog on the race track WVK
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: wevk (Nov 02, 2009 11:05 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Oct 31, 2009 9:59 am) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 02, 2009 11:17 am) Why did Chevy quit making TurboGlides, anyway? I heard they weren't as reliable as the PowerGlide, and nowhere near as good as the THM400 and THM350 transmissions that came in later years...but were they THAT bad?
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 01, 2009 9:02 am) And the smaller the car was the more people and cargo it had. It was funny.  Not sure what this one is but it looks like a Yaris sized subcompact:  See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 02, 2009 11:30 am) Turboglide wasn't really a 3-speed, at least not in the traditional sense. Like Buick's Dynaflow, you didn't feel any shifts in drive. It was very smooth, but didn't yield much acceleration. And, yes, Turboglide was troublesome. Many went bad. Powerglide wasn't the epitome of efficiency, but it was rugged and low maintenance.
|
|
|
First thing I did when I got my '59 Chevy Impala convertible was ditch the Powerglide. it's worthless. I don't know anyone who would voluntarily keep one in his old Chevy. Wait, I'm 'fused. I thought it was the Powerglide that was the good tranny!  What did you end up replacing it with?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 02, 2009 4:19 pm) "First thing I did when I got my '59 Chevy Impala convertible was ditch the Turboglide. it's worthless. I don't know anyone who would voluntarily keep one in his old Chevy. " See? I get to rewrite history! I replaced it with a rebuilt POWER-glide. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
