decodriveboy
Member
My Mark III
Pose 1
Pose 1
Lincoln and Buick update - off topic
- Thread starter 58limited
- Start date
decodriveboy
Member
Mark III
Pose 2
Pose 2
decodriveboy
Member
Mark III
Pose 3
Pose 3
58limited
Well-known member
Beautiful.
Love that Mark III and Olds 98!
In 1968 my dad's best friend replaced his Continental four-door convertible with a triple black Mark III. At the time it looked so different from other American cars (aside from the '68 Grand Prix) that people would sometimes stop and stare at the Mark. Ever since then I've had a soft spot for a triple black Mark III . . . other colors just aren't the same!
The white Olds 98 brings back memories as well. My mother's best friend had that exact car, a white '65. I think the interior was blue. I remember many trips in the back seat of that car with my sister and the owner's two boys next to me. That 98 could seat four kids in the back with room to spare.
Regarding the Lincoln 430 and 462 V-8s, they aren't FE blocks, nor are they related to the later 429/460 engines. The 430 was brought out in '58 to power the all new unit-body '58 Lincolns. Nobody had ever built a unit body car that large, and Ford had no previous American experience with unit body cars. The result was that the body engineers had to keep adding steel to get adequate strength, and the cars became very, very heavy, even heavier than equivalent Cadillacs and Imperials. To move that weight around the engine was the largest automotive engine in the world in '58 and for several years afterwards. The 430 was also hugely heavy itself, the heaviest in the industry. It had one unusual feature in that the top of the deck isn't perpendicular to the cylinder walls, but rather has a slight angle. In that respect it is similar to the first-generation Chevy big block 348 introduced the same year. Presumably this was intended to reduce milling costs of the cylinder heads as then the heads could be flatter, with much of the wedge combustion chamber being formed in the block, but neither Ford nor Chevy ever did this again.
As noted above, the 430 was available in the '58-'60 Thunderbird as an option (which I believe is very rare), and was standard equipment in the TOL '59 and '60 Mercury Park Lane. One of the prime reasons for Edsel in the first place was to drive a wedge between Ford and Mercury and allow Mercury to be pushed upmarket into the Buick/Olds/Chrysler market, with Edsel eventually taking over the lower-end part of the Mercury range. As part of that plan, the '59 and '60 Mercurys were much larger than before (and much larger than Fords), and offering the largest engine in the industry as standard in the Park Lane was intended to cement Mercury's new position. Unfortunately for Ford, the Edsel flopped, Buick/Olds/Chrysler customers didn't notice how nice the Park Lane had become, and traditional Mercury customers mostly didn't want to spend the money for a Park Lane. So, after 1960 Mercurys were once again based more closely on Fords and the 430 was no longer available. It was dropped from the Thunderbird option list too and became a Lincoln only engine. In the mid '60s it was enlarged to 462 cubic inches, and soldiered on through the start of the 1968 model year at which point it was replaced by the Ford 460. The 460 was more modern, and the 429/460 family was used in Fords, Ford trucks, and Mercurys which undoubtedly made it a lot cheaper to build in contrast to a limited production Lincoln only engine.
In 1968 my dad's best friend replaced his Continental four-door convertible with a triple black Mark III. At the time it looked so different from other American cars (aside from the '68 Grand Prix) that people would sometimes stop and stare at the Mark. Ever since then I've had a soft spot for a triple black Mark III . . . other colors just aren't the same!
The white Olds 98 brings back memories as well. My mother's best friend had that exact car, a white '65. I think the interior was blue. I remember many trips in the back seat of that car with my sister and the owner's two boys next to me. That 98 could seat four kids in the back with room to spare.
Regarding the Lincoln 430 and 462 V-8s, they aren't FE blocks, nor are they related to the later 429/460 engines. The 430 was brought out in '58 to power the all new unit-body '58 Lincolns. Nobody had ever built a unit body car that large, and Ford had no previous American experience with unit body cars. The result was that the body engineers had to keep adding steel to get adequate strength, and the cars became very, very heavy, even heavier than equivalent Cadillacs and Imperials. To move that weight around the engine was the largest automotive engine in the world in '58 and for several years afterwards. The 430 was also hugely heavy itself, the heaviest in the industry. It had one unusual feature in that the top of the deck isn't perpendicular to the cylinder walls, but rather has a slight angle. In that respect it is similar to the first-generation Chevy big block 348 introduced the same year. Presumably this was intended to reduce milling costs of the cylinder heads as then the heads could be flatter, with much of the wedge combustion chamber being formed in the block, but neither Ford nor Chevy ever did this again.
As noted above, the 430 was available in the '58-'60 Thunderbird as an option (which I believe is very rare), and was standard equipment in the TOL '59 and '60 Mercury Park Lane. One of the prime reasons for Edsel in the first place was to drive a wedge between Ford and Mercury and allow Mercury to be pushed upmarket into the Buick/Olds/Chrysler market, with Edsel eventually taking over the lower-end part of the Mercury range. As part of that plan, the '59 and '60 Mercurys were much larger than before (and much larger than Fords), and offering the largest engine in the industry as standard in the Park Lane was intended to cement Mercury's new position. Unfortunately for Ford, the Edsel flopped, Buick/Olds/Chrysler customers didn't notice how nice the Park Lane had become, and traditional Mercury customers mostly didn't want to spend the money for a Park Lane. So, after 1960 Mercurys were once again based more closely on Fords and the 430 was no longer available. It was dropped from the Thunderbird option list too and became a Lincoln only engine. In the mid '60s it was enlarged to 462 cubic inches, and soldiered on through the start of the 1968 model year at which point it was replaced by the Ford 460. The 460 was more modern, and the 429/460 family was used in Fords, Ford trucks, and Mercurys which undoubtedly made it a lot cheaper to build in contrast to a limited production Lincoln only engine.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Hydralique-----
Ooooooo yes, not long ago I saw a triple blue Merc Park Lane (looked to me like a '64) and it brought back some memories. And, yes it was a real "sleeper". The "Breeze-Way" rear window was so classic.They were great cars. A neighbor had one and I remember riding in it and thinking wow this is a really nice car.
Interesting discussion about the big-block V-8's.
I had been familiar with the ( 40's,50's and 60's) Packards, Cadillacs,Buicks,Oldsmobiles, etc. growing up,(my family was still angry at Henry Ford back then and didn't do Ford products) and did not really begin to notice the differences with the engines untill I was older and closer to driving age---then (like most teenagers) I REALLY got into it.
As a spoiled rotten JAP, my first car was a hand-me-down '67 Coupe de Ville, I got in (about) '69. It had a 429 in it and it was plenty fast. It did not, however, have that wonderful sound at idle that the 472 powered Cadillacs had. IMO the 472 powered Cadillacs from 1968-1971 were the best of the best Cadillac offered from that era. (The 1970 Eldo. 500 was a ROCKET and then they killed it the next year---duh!) I have owned many different old Cadillacs and the ones from that era just seemed to have superior performance.
In '68 My father and a "lodge buddy" of his, Frank Lowndes, both went to lunch one day and returned with new Buick Electras ---supposedly dad was talked into it----but nobody ever talked dad into anything---anyway, I think that it had a 430 V-8 in it and it seemed to me to be just as fast as a Cadillac with the 472. Maybe because the Buick was a few hundred pounds lighter.
In '70 dad was back in a 98 and that was one of the best old big GM's I remember. It had a 455 in it that seemed more powerful than a 472.It also had a wonderful purrrr to it. That car also had a better ride IMO than the Cadillac Sixty-Specials of that era, and by then I was driving them both. In fact, I remember many different people of that era that thought the 1970 Olds 98 was the best of the best! I certainly did. The 1970 Olds 98 C/B professional chassis hearse/ambulance would absolutely "pound the earth" with power and would blow the same vintage Cadillac off the road!
Much later, in the '80's I bought a '72 and a '74 Electra in rapid succession and they both had 455's, but were not nearly as powerful as those '70 98's. I think the horsepower had been diminished by pollution emission devices and later, just plain "de-rating".
In 1971 my best friend got a fabulous Lincoln Mark III (with a 460 in it) similar to the one pictured by Decodriveboy. The body was a creamy mint green with dark green vinyl top and dark green leather. Now that thing was a ROCKET! We used to FLY down Mt. Paran with that thing and that was an accomplishment as Mt. Paran is a very winding road! Ohhh--- how did we ever survive?!
Well into retirement dad started to get Lincolns. I ended up with a hand-me-down '79 Town Coupe of his. It had a 400 as mentioned by Hydralique, but was sluggish compared to those earlier cars I just discussed. It was, however, a very nice car and never gave a bit of trouble and was the largest Coupe I remember owning (I think wider and taller than a mid-seventies Eldo I had)and I am glad parking spaces were larger back in those days!
I then entered an era when I bought and "flipped" real cream-puff Cadillacs (and not a few 98's and Deuces)as I found a great source for them, and that was a lot of fun.
The next Lincoln I had was a '86 Cartier Town Car. It was very fast and nimble compared to the '79, a 5.0 litre V-8 . And was much more economical to operate----no doubt, the over-drive tranny had a lot to do with it, and that was another trouble-free car. I had that car when a golfing-buddy of my mother's told mom about her husband's '68 Lincoln. They were moving and he was looing his storage. Seems he had bought it brand new when he was fresh out of law school. He had found it at a dealership in Washington D.C., the only one of a group of identical Continentals that had been ordered by the government and not purchased. They all had black bodies (no vinyl top) and (the then "optional" Town Car) natural colored leather interior. They also all had the "optional" 460 V-8, offered on the Continentals that year. (The 460 was already standard on the "Mark" series.)Well I ended up buying it (sight unseen) and it was quite a surprise when I went to pick it up! Thinking I was going to have a "daily driver" I found I had a "museum quality" nearly brand new car on my hands! That 460 was incredibly powerful and I couldn't help but thinking it was actually more powerful than the old Cadillac 472's! It also got the worst fuel mileage of any car I ever had. (As Decodriveboy mentioned in his post.) I used to say it got about 6MPG down the "steep side of Stone Mountain". Oh, and nothing less than 91 octane please! I always ran Amoco 93.It was incredibly "over-built" mechanically and made me a nervous wreck as I did not trust anyone here in Atlanta at the time (about 1995) to work on it. The damn power-steering pump was driven off of the drive shaft for heavens sake! I ended up selling it to a Lincoln dealer building a new dealership to use as a "centerpiece" of his new car showroom. A relief to me as I was constantly worried it would get dings and chips!
The last of the great old GMs I had (it has been sold) was my '70 Coupe de Ville (see photo in my profile).It had one of those old 472's in it and that wonderful sound at idle------ that just wreaked "Cadillac". It was so much fun to drive and re-connect with that classic "instant" power!
So now I am left with just one classic, my '72 M-B. She is fast and way too thirsty---scary, scary.
I am so glad (and truly blessed) that I was able to experience so many of the cars from America's "golden era".And those old big block V-8's will always remain front and center in my memory.
(OMG! I just wrote a pocket-novel----honey puhleeeez-----don't tell Peter!)
Ooooooo yes, not long ago I saw a triple blue Merc Park Lane (looked to me like a '64) and it brought back some memories. And, yes it was a real "sleeper". The "Breeze-Way" rear window was so classic.They were great cars. A neighbor had one and I remember riding in it and thinking wow this is a really nice car.
Interesting discussion about the big-block V-8's.
I had been familiar with the ( 40's,50's and 60's) Packards, Cadillacs,Buicks,Oldsmobiles, etc. growing up,(my family was still angry at Henry Ford back then and didn't do Ford products) and did not really begin to notice the differences with the engines untill I was older and closer to driving age---then (like most teenagers) I REALLY got into it.
As a spoiled rotten JAP, my first car was a hand-me-down '67 Coupe de Ville, I got in (about) '69. It had a 429 in it and it was plenty fast. It did not, however, have that wonderful sound at idle that the 472 powered Cadillacs had. IMO the 472 powered Cadillacs from 1968-1971 were the best of the best Cadillac offered from that era. (The 1970 Eldo. 500 was a ROCKET and then they killed it the next year---duh!) I have owned many different old Cadillacs and the ones from that era just seemed to have superior performance.
In '68 My father and a "lodge buddy" of his, Frank Lowndes, both went to lunch one day and returned with new Buick Electras ---supposedly dad was talked into it----but nobody ever talked dad into anything---anyway, I think that it had a 430 V-8 in it and it seemed to me to be just as fast as a Cadillac with the 472. Maybe because the Buick was a few hundred pounds lighter.
In '70 dad was back in a 98 and that was one of the best old big GM's I remember. It had a 455 in it that seemed more powerful than a 472.It also had a wonderful purrrr to it. That car also had a better ride IMO than the Cadillac Sixty-Specials of that era, and by then I was driving them both. In fact, I remember many different people of that era that thought the 1970 Olds 98 was the best of the best! I certainly did. The 1970 Olds 98 C/B professional chassis hearse/ambulance would absolutely "pound the earth" with power and would blow the same vintage Cadillac off the road!
Much later, in the '80's I bought a '72 and a '74 Electra in rapid succession and they both had 455's, but were not nearly as powerful as those '70 98's. I think the horsepower had been diminished by pollution emission devices and later, just plain "de-rating".
In 1971 my best friend got a fabulous Lincoln Mark III (with a 460 in it) similar to the one pictured by Decodriveboy. The body was a creamy mint green with dark green vinyl top and dark green leather. Now that thing was a ROCKET! We used to FLY down Mt. Paran with that thing and that was an accomplishment as Mt. Paran is a very winding road! Ohhh--- how did we ever survive?!
Well into retirement dad started to get Lincolns. I ended up with a hand-me-down '79 Town Coupe of his. It had a 400 as mentioned by Hydralique, but was sluggish compared to those earlier cars I just discussed. It was, however, a very nice car and never gave a bit of trouble and was the largest Coupe I remember owning (I think wider and taller than a mid-seventies Eldo I had)and I am glad parking spaces were larger back in those days!
I then entered an era when I bought and "flipped" real cream-puff Cadillacs (and not a few 98's and Deuces)as I found a great source for them, and that was a lot of fun.
The next Lincoln I had was a '86 Cartier Town Car. It was very fast and nimble compared to the '79, a 5.0 litre V-8 . And was much more economical to operate----no doubt, the over-drive tranny had a lot to do with it, and that was another trouble-free car. I had that car when a golfing-buddy of my mother's told mom about her husband's '68 Lincoln. They were moving and he was looing his storage. Seems he had bought it brand new when he was fresh out of law school. He had found it at a dealership in Washington D.C., the only one of a group of identical Continentals that had been ordered by the government and not purchased. They all had black bodies (no vinyl top) and (the then "optional" Town Car) natural colored leather interior. They also all had the "optional" 460 V-8, offered on the Continentals that year. (The 460 was already standard on the "Mark" series.)Well I ended up buying it (sight unseen) and it was quite a surprise when I went to pick it up! Thinking I was going to have a "daily driver" I found I had a "museum quality" nearly brand new car on my hands! That 460 was incredibly powerful and I couldn't help but thinking it was actually more powerful than the old Cadillac 472's! It also got the worst fuel mileage of any car I ever had. (As Decodriveboy mentioned in his post.) I used to say it got about 6MPG down the "steep side of Stone Mountain". Oh, and nothing less than 91 octane please! I always ran Amoco 93.It was incredibly "over-built" mechanically and made me a nervous wreck as I did not trust anyone here in Atlanta at the time (about 1995) to work on it. The damn power-steering pump was driven off of the drive shaft for heavens sake! I ended up selling it to a Lincoln dealer building a new dealership to use as a "centerpiece" of his new car showroom. A relief to me as I was constantly worried it would get dings and chips!
The last of the great old GMs I had (it has been sold) was my '70 Coupe de Ville (see photo in my profile).It had one of those old 472's in it and that wonderful sound at idle------ that just wreaked "Cadillac". It was so much fun to drive and re-connect with that classic "instant" power!
So now I am left with just one classic, my '72 M-B. She is fast and way too thirsty---scary, scary.
I am so glad (and truly blessed) that I was able to experience so many of the cars from America's "golden era".And those old big block V-8's will always remain front and center in my memory.
(OMG! I just wrote a pocket-novel----honey puhleeeez-----don't tell Peter!)
V-8s and winding roads . . .
I'm not a V-8 guy at all, but have to admit to a bit of fun and hooliganism this weekend with a new Audi RS4. That is the top of the line A4 based model with a 420 hp V-8 shoehorned into the nose and the Quattro four wheel drive. Audi hopes to tempt a few potential BMW M3 buyers with it. All I know is that on a canyon road it is an absolute rocketship, especially in third gear. Passing someone is like 1-2-3: 1) downshift to 3rd 2) enjoy the torque curve that stays strong to way over 7000 rpm as you mash your foot into the carpet and listen to that nice V-8 moan 3) say OMG! when you shift into 4th and realize that you're kissing 100 and have two gears to go. It wasn't my car (actually it was an Audi owned executive car a friend had on loan . . . shhhhh . . . ) so I wasn't about to do anything stupid but what fun.
Unfortunately, when you're not pushing it, it is just another nice, plush, competant modern car. It doesn't feel special at lower speeds, which makes it boring most of the time. One of the nice things about older cars is that they can feel special even just pottering around, and you can have fun without losing your license.
I'm not a V-8 guy at all, but have to admit to a bit of fun and hooliganism this weekend with a new Audi RS4. That is the top of the line A4 based model with a 420 hp V-8 shoehorned into the nose and the Quattro four wheel drive. Audi hopes to tempt a few potential BMW M3 buyers with it. All I know is that on a canyon road it is an absolute rocketship, especially in third gear. Passing someone is like 1-2-3: 1) downshift to 3rd 2) enjoy the torque curve that stays strong to way over 7000 rpm as you mash your foot into the carpet and listen to that nice V-8 moan 3) say OMG! when you shift into 4th and realize that you're kissing 100 and have two gears to go. It wasn't my car (actually it was an Audi owned executive car a friend had on loan . . . shhhhh . . . ) so I wasn't about to do anything stupid but what fun.
Unfortunately, when you're not pushing it, it is just another nice, plush, competant modern car. It doesn't feel special at lower speeds, which makes it boring most of the time. One of the nice things about older cars is that they can feel special even just pottering around, and you can have fun without losing your license.
decodriveboy
Member
One thing on my mind
Did anybody else feel frustrated by the too-tall dashboards on the Lincolns beginning in the late 1960's? I practically needed a booster seat to drive my Mark III.
If I ever bought another Lincoln, it would probably be a 1962 or 1963 Continental...not only did it have a low dash, but awesome suicide doors, and very cool 3-sided AC vents (dont know what they are called exactly). If it had come with concealed headlights that would have been absolutely perfect.
Did anybody else feel frustrated by the too-tall dashboards on the Lincolns beginning in the late 1960's? I practically needed a booster seat to drive my Mark III.
If I ever bought another Lincoln, it would probably be a 1962 or 1963 Continental...not only did it have a low dash, but awesome suicide doors, and very cool 3-sided AC vents (dont know what they are called exactly). If it had come with concealed headlights that would have been absolutely perfect.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
With a six-way power seat, I always have the habit of raising the power-seat vertically to its highest adjustment and then adjusting the forward/rear and tilt. Same with the four way I always prefer to set the seat as high as possible. I find this always helps me to have good visibility especially down those long hoods.
58limited
Well-known member
When I bought my Lincoln last month, I couldn't see over the dash too well but as I drove it and found all the controls, I adjusted the seat and can now see perfectly. The previous owner was shorter than me, so I don't know how he could have driven the car with the seats adjusted that way.
One thing that impresses me about this car is the brakes: they are hydralic assisted, not vacuum assisted like most cars. The hydralic pressure is supplied by the power steering pump. This car, for all of its weight, stops better than anything I own, including my 1998 Olds with antilock brakes (which I hate). I wonder why this wasn't used on Ford's other products. When I test-drove the Lincoln, I hit the brakes to test them and, if not for the seatbelt, it would have thrown me into the steering wheel, and I was going less than 10mph.
One thing that impresses me about this car is the brakes: they are hydralic assisted, not vacuum assisted like most cars. The hydralic pressure is supplied by the power steering pump. This car, for all of its weight, stops better than anything I own, including my 1998 Olds with antilock brakes (which I hate). I wonder why this wasn't used on Ford's other products. When I test-drove the Lincoln, I hit the brakes to test them and, if not for the seatbelt, it would have thrown me into the steering wheel, and I was going less than 10mph.
Hydraulic Assist . . .
Oh, how I hate spongy vacuum boosted brakes! Through the years Lincoln has occasionally used a hydraulic assist, as have some other companies. Lincoln also used a hydraulic wiper motor for years in the '60s, again driven off the power steering pump. One interesting factoid about Lincoln brakes is that they briefly offered a primitive anti-lock system on the rear brakes only of the Mark III in about '71. I think it was the first anti-lock system outside of the pioneering Jensen FF of 1966, which of course had full four wheel anti-lock courtesy of the Ferguson four wheel drive system and Dunop Maxaret brake controller. I don't know much about the Mark III anti-lock, as almost nobody bought it and it wasn't offered for long. About the same time Buick briefly offered a simple traction control device for the Riviera, but again it wasn't promoted and didn't last long. Two sad examples of Ford and GM actually offering some advanced safety technology only to cheap out when they couldn't turn an immediate profit on it. Ultimately others (can you say Bosch?) spent the time and money to develop the concepts into really useful products.
Hydraulic assist doesn't necessarily provide better brakes, just better feel in my opinion. Alfa Romeo in particular has a history of providing spongy, over-boosted assist but excellent brakes so the cars stop very well but to me feel nasty. I always hated that on my Alfetta coupe. The reason for the superiority of hydraulic assist is simple: vacuum boosters use air as their fluid, and air can compress and expand, while hydraulic fluid by its' very nature doesn't compress and therefore provides better feel.
My favorite power brake design of all is the traditional Citroen system, which is true power and not power assist. It uses no master cylinder, but rather a proportioning valve which distributes brake fluid at high pressure to the front and rear brakes when you push the pedal. The actual amount of fluid is determined by both how hard you push the pedal and the relative loading of the front and rear suspension . . . more weight in the rear means more power to the rear brakes. The high pressure fluid (approximately 2000 psi) is provided by the engine driven high-pressure pump and accumulator system, so the pedal feel is always nice and firm and travel is very short, maybe 1/2" or so, giving reduced reaction times.
Oh, how I hate spongy vacuum boosted brakes! Through the years Lincoln has occasionally used a hydraulic assist, as have some other companies. Lincoln also used a hydraulic wiper motor for years in the '60s, again driven off the power steering pump. One interesting factoid about Lincoln brakes is that they briefly offered a primitive anti-lock system on the rear brakes only of the Mark III in about '71. I think it was the first anti-lock system outside of the pioneering Jensen FF of 1966, which of course had full four wheel anti-lock courtesy of the Ferguson four wheel drive system and Dunop Maxaret brake controller. I don't know much about the Mark III anti-lock, as almost nobody bought it and it wasn't offered for long. About the same time Buick briefly offered a simple traction control device for the Riviera, but again it wasn't promoted and didn't last long. Two sad examples of Ford and GM actually offering some advanced safety technology only to cheap out when they couldn't turn an immediate profit on it. Ultimately others (can you say Bosch?) spent the time and money to develop the concepts into really useful products.
Hydraulic assist doesn't necessarily provide better brakes, just better feel in my opinion. Alfa Romeo in particular has a history of providing spongy, over-boosted assist but excellent brakes so the cars stop very well but to me feel nasty. I always hated that on my Alfetta coupe. The reason for the superiority of hydraulic assist is simple: vacuum boosters use air as their fluid, and air can compress and expand, while hydraulic fluid by its' very nature doesn't compress and therefore provides better feel.
My favorite power brake design of all is the traditional Citroen system, which is true power and not power assist. It uses no master cylinder, but rather a proportioning valve which distributes brake fluid at high pressure to the front and rear brakes when you push the pedal. The actual amount of fluid is determined by both how hard you push the pedal and the relative loading of the front and rear suspension . . . more weight in the rear means more power to the rear brakes. The high pressure fluid (approximately 2000 psi) is provided by the engine driven high-pressure pump and accumulator system, so the pedal feel is always nice and firm and travel is very short, maybe 1/2" or so, giving reduced reaction times.
Brakes.
The strangest, and best, brakes I have ever encountered have been on Volvo 240s. Volvo introduced the first car for sale in the US with 4-wheel disc brakes. I think it was the 140 series, introduced in 1966. The 140s were updated for 1975 and the model was changed to the 240 series. I know all the 240s had 4-wheel disc brakes. A 240 brake pedal has relatively little travel. You press the pedal a tiny bit then WHAM! the brakes are engaged. The pedal will travel a little bit beyond that point, increasing the braking pressure, until the pedal seems to not move any further. It's not like the pedal hits a wall, that's just as far as it needs to go. Any furter braking necessary almost seems to take place with increased pressure on the pedal with almost no pedal movement.
Having driven my, and other people's, Volvo 240s for about 10 years, my experience has been that they all feel this way. It takes some getting used to, but I find that it's the most comfortable braking system I have ever encountered. I have yet to find another car that comes close. My mother's Volvo 740 couldn't even hold a candle to my 240. My 240 will stop on a dime and give you 9 cents change, even without anti-locks.
A friend of mine who drove a 1971 VW Beetle was driving my Volvo once and I told him to test the brakes to get used to them. He locked all 4 wheels at under 15 mph! The '71 Bug was pretty good to drive, but its 4-wheel drum brakes with no power assist were, at times, frightening.
Why manufacturers still use rear drum brakes is beyond me,
Dave
The strangest, and best, brakes I have ever encountered have been on Volvo 240s. Volvo introduced the first car for sale in the US with 4-wheel disc brakes. I think it was the 140 series, introduced in 1966. The 140s were updated for 1975 and the model was changed to the 240 series. I know all the 240s had 4-wheel disc brakes. A 240 brake pedal has relatively little travel. You press the pedal a tiny bit then WHAM! the brakes are engaged. The pedal will travel a little bit beyond that point, increasing the braking pressure, until the pedal seems to not move any further. It's not like the pedal hits a wall, that's just as far as it needs to go. Any furter braking necessary almost seems to take place with increased pressure on the pedal with almost no pedal movement.
Having driven my, and other people's, Volvo 240s for about 10 years, my experience has been that they all feel this way. It takes some getting used to, but I find that it's the most comfortable braking system I have ever encountered. I have yet to find another car that comes close. My mother's Volvo 740 couldn't even hold a candle to my 240. My 240 will stop on a dime and give you 9 cents change, even without anti-locks.
A friend of mine who drove a 1971 VW Beetle was driving my Volvo once and I told him to test the brakes to get used to them. He locked all 4 wheels at under 15 mph! The '71 Bug was pretty good to drive, but its 4-wheel drum brakes with no power assist were, at times, frightening.
Why manufacturers still use rear drum brakes is beyond me,
Dave
Four Wheel Discs . . .
There were plenty of cars for sale here in the US with four wheel disc brakes before '66. I don't think the 122/Amazon series had front discs until '62, and don't know if it ever got four wheel discs. That said, Volvo can be commended for having four wheel discs in '66 before many manufacturers.
The Jaguar XK 150 had four wheel discs for the '58 model year, and it is worth noting that Jag's excellent independent rear suspension, introduced on both the new E-Type sports car and Mark X sedan for '61, had inboard discs as an integral part of the differential assembly. Jaguar had pioneered disc brakes in racing in the early '50s and thus it isn't surprising that they were early adopters on road cars as well.
Renault took the lead in small cars by putting four wheel discs on the R8 for '63. The first American car to have four wheel discs was the Corvette in '65. The 'Vette system is really very good, and has quite nice pedal feel and not too much effort even without a power booster. I was once rear-ended while driving a '66 on a traffic choked freeway by a Dodge truck. When I felt the bang I stayed on the brakes hard to keep from hitting the car in front, and the poor Corvette hardly moved at all. It did suffer major damage to the rear, but at least the front wasn't hurt too. The fact that GM continued to produce big, expensive cars like Cadillacs and Buicks with four wheel drums in the mid '60s is sad testament to their undying cheapness when they had demonstrated the ability to do so much better.
There were plenty of cars for sale here in the US with four wheel disc brakes before '66. I don't think the 122/Amazon series had front discs until '62, and don't know if it ever got four wheel discs. That said, Volvo can be commended for having four wheel discs in '66 before many manufacturers.
The Jaguar XK 150 had four wheel discs for the '58 model year, and it is worth noting that Jag's excellent independent rear suspension, introduced on both the new E-Type sports car and Mark X sedan for '61, had inboard discs as an integral part of the differential assembly. Jaguar had pioneered disc brakes in racing in the early '50s and thus it isn't surprising that they were early adopters on road cars as well.
Renault took the lead in small cars by putting four wheel discs on the R8 for '63. The first American car to have four wheel discs was the Corvette in '65. The 'Vette system is really very good, and has quite nice pedal feel and not too much effort even without a power booster. I was once rear-ended while driving a '66 on a traffic choked freeway by a Dodge truck. When I felt the bang I stayed on the brakes hard to keep from hitting the car in front, and the poor Corvette hardly moved at all. It did suffer major damage to the rear, but at least the front wasn't hurt too. The fact that GM continued to produce big, expensive cars like Cadillacs and Buicks with four wheel drums in the mid '60s is sad testament to their undying cheapness when they had demonstrated the ability to do so much better.
selectomatic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 483
Lincoln Hydraulic Brakes
As I understand it, the reason that the late-70s Lincolns had hydraulic brakes was that Ford had overtaxed the vaccuum system with such things as the Automatic Temperature Control system and the headlamp doors, etc. to a point where the brakes couldn't be made terribly reliable without seeking another power source.
My 1976 Town Car had hydraulic brakes, and they worked great.
The problem with hydraulic is that all of the power assist completely disappears as soon as the engine stops, the steering fluid leaks out, or the steering belt breaks. With a vaccuum system and a reservoir, you still have power assist for one or two stops after the engine quits.
As to the 1970-or-so Ford antilock-brake system, it was called Sure Track, and it was available as an option on Mark IIIs and Thunderbirds (the same basic car with different sheet metal). I had some Thunderbirds from that era, and I've been told that I was lucky they weren't equipped with Sure Track -- I guess it wasn't particularly reliable.
-kevin
As I understand it, the reason that the late-70s Lincolns had hydraulic brakes was that Ford had overtaxed the vaccuum system with such things as the Automatic Temperature Control system and the headlamp doors, etc. to a point where the brakes couldn't be made terribly reliable without seeking another power source.
My 1976 Town Car had hydraulic brakes, and they worked great.
The problem with hydraulic is that all of the power assist completely disappears as soon as the engine stops, the steering fluid leaks out, or the steering belt breaks. With a vaccuum system and a reservoir, you still have power assist for one or two stops after the engine quits.
As to the 1970-or-so Ford antilock-brake system, it was called Sure Track, and it was available as an option on Mark IIIs and Thunderbirds (the same basic car with different sheet metal). I had some Thunderbirds from that era, and I've been told that I was lucky they weren't equipped with Sure Track -- I guess it wasn't particularly reliable.
-kevin
Hydraulic pressure doesn't necessarily disappear when the pump stops for whatever reason. I don't kow much about the technical aspects of the Lincoln system, but Citroen has always had accumulators in their systems. On the DS and SM, the front brakes have their own accumulator, while the rear brakes receive pressure from the main system accumulator. The result is that you can kill the engine and have enough pressure for several stops, plus the main accumulator also supplies the power steering so that keeps working for awhile as well. I'm surprised Lincoln didn't put at least a small accumulator in their system, but since their brakes have a master cylinder (unlike Citroen) maybe they thought it unnecessary, since in theory you could stop the car without any assist.
My sister actually had a minor accident years ago due to the engine stalling in a car with vacuum boost. She was going up a hill in Austin in a DeTomaso Pantera, and when the engine stalled there wasn't enough vacuum left to allow her to keep the car from rolling backwards into a parked car. She leaned hard on the pedal, but still couldn't stop the car. A Pantera expert later confirmed that it was hard for him to stop one without any vacuum assist, and at 6'-2" and 210 pounds he was much larger than my sister!
I'm not surprised that Sure Track didn't work well. I really think it was the first electronic anti-lock system, and even into the '90s some anti-lock systems weren't totally reliable (the crappy Chrysler-Bendix system for starters). The Dunlop Maxaret used by Jensen was mechanical and quite clever, but not applicable to two wheel drive cars and therefore a technical dead end. Imagine how nice it would have been if Ford had spent the time and money to develop the system instead of giving up and leaving it to Bosch to make it work right.
My sister actually had a minor accident years ago due to the engine stalling in a car with vacuum boost. She was going up a hill in Austin in a DeTomaso Pantera, and when the engine stalled there wasn't enough vacuum left to allow her to keep the car from rolling backwards into a parked car. She leaned hard on the pedal, but still couldn't stop the car. A Pantera expert later confirmed that it was hard for him to stop one without any vacuum assist, and at 6'-2" and 210 pounds he was much larger than my sister!
I'm not surprised that Sure Track didn't work well. I really think it was the first electronic anti-lock system, and even into the '90s some anti-lock systems weren't totally reliable (the crappy Chrysler-Bendix system for starters). The Dunlop Maxaret used by Jensen was mechanical and quite clever, but not applicable to two wheel drive cars and therefore a technical dead end. Imagine how nice it would have been if Ford had spent the time and money to develop the system instead of giving up and leaving it to Bosch to make it work right.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Drmitch-----
That 352 made classic sound! The '59 Galaxy (Sunliner?) I remember was a Two-Tone Coral and Black Hard-top Convertable. It had a 352 in it that was very powerful for a V-8 in those days, so I know your blue beauty was a rocket as well. Do you still have it? I really liked the steering wheel Ford put in those from 57-59. Very classic.
That 352 made classic sound! The '59 Galaxy (Sunliner?) I remember was a Two-Tone Coral and Black Hard-top Convertable. It had a 352 in it that was very powerful for a V-8 in those days, so I know your blue beauty was a rocket as well. Do you still have it? I really liked the steering wheel Ford put in those from 57-59. Very classic.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Gyrafoam:
"We used to FLY down Mt. Paran with that thing and that was an accomplishment as Mt. Paran is a very winding road! Ohhh--- how did we ever survive?!"
Egad! How, indeed? One of the few true improvements on today's cars is suspensions. As much as I loved those cars of yesteryear, their suspensions were set up for ride quality on a boulevard surface, not control. There was a fair amount of wallowing and tyre-squealing in those days if you pushed the car at all.
Mt. Paran Road at speed in a 1970s car! I pale and tremble.
Sandy (Mayretta, Jawjuh)
"We used to FLY down Mt. Paran with that thing and that was an accomplishment as Mt. Paran is a very winding road! Ohhh--- how did we ever survive?!"
Egad! How, indeed? One of the few true improvements on today's cars is suspensions. As much as I loved those cars of yesteryear, their suspensions were set up for ride quality on a boulevard surface, not control. There was a fair amount of wallowing and tyre-squealing in those days if you pushed the car at all.
Mt. Paran Road at speed in a 1970s car! I pale and tremble.
Sandy (Mayretta, Jawjuh)
gyrafoam
Well-known member
My 1968 Lincoln Continental.
58limited
Well-known member
That '68 Lincoln is nice. We had one in our club, a 22 year old bought it and, unusual for youngsters today, wanted to keep it all original. The car is still around, but the guy left the club - too busy to make meetings and events. It is gold inside and out and has very few flaws - so few that it is not worth the effort to fix them as he might cause more damage doing it.
The '59 Ford hardtop convertible was called a "Skyliner" and was made in 1957-59. The Sunliner was what Ford called the soft top convertibles in the fifties (don't know if it was called that in '59). There are a few Skyliners in my area and they are neat cars. Now several newer cars have a convertible hardtop - interesting how these ideas keep returning.
I have wanted an early eighties Eldorado convertible for years, as well as a Buick Riviera convertible from the same time period (see below). I think the early to mid-eighties Riviera convertible is one of the prettiest cars from that decade.
The '59 Ford hardtop convertible was called a "Skyliner" and was made in 1957-59. The Sunliner was what Ford called the soft top convertibles in the fifties (don't know if it was called that in '59). There are a few Skyliners in my area and they are neat cars. Now several newer cars have a convertible hardtop - interesting how these ideas keep returning.
I have wanted an early eighties Eldorado convertible for years, as well as a Buick Riviera convertible from the same time period (see below). I think the early to mid-eighties Riviera convertible is one of the prettiest cars from that decade.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Drmitch-----
I like the looks of that body style Eldo. and know what you mean about the horsepower. I especially liked the biscuited leather seating on the Biarritz. Lots of those with the SS roof too.
IMO the last of the truly "earth-pounding" Eldo's (IMO) was the 1970. 500CU V-8 cranking out a true 400HP at 4400 rpm! Good thing 93 octane Premium was under .50 cents a gallon!
My favorite Convertible ever was the 1966 Eldorado in Silverpine Green Firemist with White Top and White Leather Bucket Seats.(Last of the rear-wheel drive models). These had the old 429 CU V-8. Cadillac finally added the varible-ratio power-steering this year so you could keep it in one lane (after a visit to the bong) without too much effort and parking was MUCH easier!
I like the looks of that body style Eldo. and know what you mean about the horsepower. I especially liked the biscuited leather seating on the Biarritz. Lots of those with the SS roof too.
IMO the last of the truly "earth-pounding" Eldo's (IMO) was the 1970. 500CU V-8 cranking out a true 400HP at 4400 rpm! Good thing 93 octane Premium was under .50 cents a gallon!
My favorite Convertible ever was the 1966 Eldorado in Silverpine Green Firemist with White Top and White Leather Bucket Seats.(Last of the rear-wheel drive models). These had the old 429 CU V-8. Cadillac finally added the varible-ratio power-steering this year so you could keep it in one lane (after a visit to the bong) without too much effort and parking was MUCH easier!
customcadillac
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 7
The "chrome mandate"
I think it was in 1958 that GM head of design, Herley Earl dictated that every full-sized GM model "must have" a "minimum" of 58 pounds of chrome on it. How they measured that 58 pounds, I don't know - given the cars, ya' think a measurment in acreage would've been simpler.
I think it was in 1958 that GM head of design, Herley Earl dictated that every full-sized GM model "must have" a "minimum" of 58 pounds of chrome on it. How they measured that 58 pounds, I don't know - given the cars, ya' think a measurment in acreage would've been simpler.
Someone once said that when chrome was available by the mountainful, Harley Earl was there with a shovel!
scott55405
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,831
Speaking of brakes
what sort of brakes were used on cars such as mid 70s Buicks, as compared to the brakes/power brakes used today? I don't know how many times I nearly put my poor father through the windshield when I was learning to drive, but I have to say since that time I've never experienced brakes that were that touchy and sensitive.
what sort of brakes were used on cars such as mid 70s Buicks, as compared to the brakes/power brakes used today? I don't know how many times I nearly put my poor father through the windshield when I was learning to drive, but I have to say since that time I've never experienced brakes that were that touchy and sensitive.
abcomatic
Well-known member
Here is a picture of my 1959 Lincoln Continental Mark 4
Gary
View attachment 6-1-2007-18-02-57--abcomatic.jpg
Gary
View attachment 6-1-2007-18-02-57--abcomatic.jpg
Similar threads
