Technical Tri Five driving question

I have been driving my 57 chevy station wagon for 35 or 40 years. It has a 300 HP 350, 350 turbo trans, A/C and radial tires of course. I added power disc brakes on the front. I frequently tow a trailer with an antique car on it. The first thing I always do is replace the shocks on everything including new cars with no miles. I was surprised that this car does not need better shocks. My son and his wife were in it when I drove over speed bumps without slowing down. She commented that it has a better ride than her mothers new car. I use small tires on the front and it steers great, very easy. Avoid wide front tires

 

Ok, now it's your turn, how about a little "wasted days and wasted nights"?

 

If Freddy was still around he could have played a gig for us. I bet he would have liked to see the hotrods.

 

Hello,

It is not fair comparing a 55-57 Chevy to a 69 Camaro. The two are different as night and day. The innovations of the newer models surpass the old. But that is not to say the old cannot be upgraded to drive like it owns the road.

The two Camaros that I drove had 2 different motors and set ups. My wife’s brother had a green with white stripes 396 SS and the other was a neighbor’s new, 302 Z-28, dark green with white stripes. They were both terrors on the street. But, the atmosphere was not the same. Sure, immense acceleration was the norm in the newer Camaros. The drive line and suspension was newer and the shocks were the better options than were around in 1955-57.

The tires and overall ride were pretty nice. But, for my wife and I, it was not what we wanted to own and drive. Sure, they threw us back in our seatbacks when full throttle was applied. In looking back to 1961-63, the 57 Chevy Bel Air Hardtop we modified with a dual quad set up, a 60 Corvette 4 speed, Traction Masters Bars, and Positraction from our backyard garage did the trick. It was one fast Chevy Bel Air. The springs were cut, creating a lowered Cal Rake stance. The ride was teenager-acceptable back then.

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/pics-of-57-chevy-60s-race-street-cars.1123888/#post-14078715

The power and handling as good as it was, just did not compare to today’s rides. Not as much power as my 58 Impala, but power none the less. It was pretty fast for a 57 Chevy during those teenage years. The only problem we encountered was the curved 4 speed shift lever was in the way during our teen dating years, too. But, it made for a close encounter of the new kind… The 57 Chevy was as good as it was for the times.

Jnaki

It was fun setting up the 57 Chevy to get as much power as we could out of the 283. But, our next level was going to a 301 for more power. We also had a friend that had a 301 in a lowered 56 Chevy Bel Air and it was extremely fast.

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/fine-fifty-six.1233157/#post-14116176

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCb8smHguN8 56 Chevy at Lion’s Dragstrip

In looking back, it was thrilling accelerating in both of the high performance Camaros. But, it was a new factory hot rod, not a traditional 50s hot rod that most of us drove as daily drivers as teenagers. YRMV

Currently, if my wife and I had a choice of a 55-57 Chevy versus a z28 Camaro, it would be a 55-57 2 door station wagon with all of the goodies, including A/C stock or Vintage Air, 283 or bigger. The comfort and ride would be upgraded to handle and brake like the factory hot rods of today. But, the feel of driving around in the "newish" 55-57 Chevy wagon would be so much better. They are classics and ones we used to enjoy driving around as teenagers.

The choice is probably a different one than the timeline that followed us when the Camaros came out. If you were a teenager in 67-69, then, there might be a different choice. But, as usual, the choice is yours.

 

Since I had a 69 Camaro, and now have a 56 Nomad. I'll add my 2 cents worth also. I'm sure this has been said already. But it's not so much about the year, as it is of the build. As a Hot Rod site. I'll take it that we'er not talking about fully stock cars. If they were stock that would be an easy answer. The newer the car, the better they drive usually. But first, our 69 Camaro was an SS 396-375 B.H.P. and then built for fun at the strip. But it we still used it on the street as my wife's daily driver. It had a 4 speed, and was black on black. It had 5'' cragers up front, and 10'' on the rear with M.T.'s. It was light and a hand full on the street. Now for our 56 Nomad. It has a mild SBC with a 350 automatic. Basically just a rebuilt stock chassis. It has the original factory steering wheel also. I have seat belts with the big comfortable factory seats. The wife and grandkids, they really Love it! But I still drive mostly on the back roads when they are along. Neither of those cars the 56 or the 69 are as safe as the newer cars on the roads today. But the FUN factor is threw the roof ! And yeah I wish I had my 69 back. So a photo or it didn't happen. lol So here's a photo of the wife. { she's a 1958 } the second is our Nomad it's a { 1956 } , and just a driver, the Nomad.

 

As far a front ends 54 to 55 was a big change quite an up grade brake fade was a problem.

 

Drove my 54 as well as our 56 all over the Black Hills and never had an issue with brake fade on either. And we have some serious grades.

 

I think the bigger difference comes between worn out and brand new.

most these older cars have rubber that’s just totally shot and springs that don't spring. Rebuilt and in good shape it’s a different world

my 46’ Ford with all new springs and rubber with a sbc in it drove almost exactly like my dads 90’s Chevy long bed work truck trim level pickup.

I think that’s a comparison most of us can imagine. I wouldn’t compare it to a new car but a 30 year old base level half ton pickup isn’t very far off

 

I don't see anything in the replies that would dissuade me from trying out a Tri Five even if it's a longer drive away.

I knew it might not be easy to compare to a '69 camaro, but the late sixties muscle cars are my only frame of reference. I figured if you stipulated both cars were similarly equipped, in good condition and excluding a lot of modifications, it might be possible.

At any rate I'm just looking for a nice mild hotrod to cruise and one that's not a chore to drive. I think I'd probably be happy with the right Tri Five. Now I just have to find one in a market that's in a shark like feeding frenzy.

Once again I would like to thank everyone for their helpful comments. This site will be great resource to have while looking for a car.

 

The 55-57 Chevy is probably the closest to musclecar feel than any other 50's car, it's got ball joints up front instead of kingpins like 54-earlier Chevs, it's got an open driveshaft unlike the 54-earlier ones (as well as Buick and Rambler who kept torque tubes much longer), they're mostly small block Chevy powered, they're a similar size to an A-body GM or B-body Mopar of the muscle years, (they don't feel overly 'boaty' to me) with perimeter frame like a Chevelle, plus there's a massive aftermarket for them, both stock and modified.

I love a lot of the oddball 50's stuff and have had quite a few but I will say my '57 has been the easiest one to live with as a semi-daily driver. They ride and drive great, even in mostly stock format, as long as nothing is worn out (which is true of pretty much any old car I guess). Maybe somewhat softer/cushier ride than some muscle era cars, although I personally like that.

 

One thing worth considering is the fact that you'll probably have to rebuild a couple things on the frontend if you happen to buy a '55 with any kind of miles on it. That presents the perfect opportunity to make the upgrades that really improve their handling. The aftermarket supports these cars in spades and parts are easy to come by and probably cheaper than rebuilding the old parts. For instance, removing the control arms and replacing the bushings, tie rod ends, and ball joints versus buying new, tubular control arms that will bolt on and are ready to go.

Power steering, rebuilt components, new shocks, power disc brakes, and a decent sway bar makes a huge difference in how these cars handle and drive. A little altitude adjustment doesn't hurt either!

 

Sway bar. Shocks like Bilstein on all four corners. Add a cross bar for the rear shocks to bolt on rather than into the floor pan. https://www.performanceonline.com/1955-57-Chevy-Belair-Front-Sway-Bar-kit/

 

I have 215/75-15 radials up front, which adds to the steering effort. I keep 33 psi in them which helps.

 

^^^^^ A idler arm with bearings makes things even easier which I forgot to include in my earlier post. Only the 56 in the avatar of the 3 tri fives owned had it. Did add it to other 56 but still haven't driven it yet to see a true side by side comparison.

Bearings


Bushings

 

As I have a first gen Camaro and then my grandmother having a 55, really a set of sway bars front and rear will make the 55 handle close to my Camaro with its original suspension. I like the driving position in the 55 than the Camaro for longer distance drives as well. The muscle car is fun for ripping around town, but I would take the 55 anywhere for a road trip.

 

The biggest difference are in the brakes.

The drum brakes are more than adequate virtually all of the time!

But if you pull a camping trailer in the mountains, be careful on the long down-hill runs.

And if you have to ford low water bridges, you need to dry the brakes IMMEDIATELY after exiting the water.

We used to hold one foot on the brake petal while fording, thus retaining heat in the brakes. The first time I did that with a disc brake car (1968), I quickly learned it was unnecessary with disc brakes (glad I had my seat belt on)

Jon.

 

As others have said, you have to put them in context. I saw a vintage Mechanix Illustrated comparison road test of three new-at-the-time V8 hardtop '56 model cars (Ford, Plymouth and Pontiac I believe) years ago and it had an action pic of the Ford powering through a corner. It was leaned over enough that you could see the chassis, and the front wheels were turned maybe 10 degrees more than the arc the car was doing (massive understeer). The photo caption was 'Handling is above average'... LOL. Granted, they were pushing the car to near it's limit, but that's how they drove on the narrow bias-ply tires of the day. But most of them had that 'driving your living room' feel to them, that's just how it was. Comfortable? You bet. Precise handling? Not so much...

Radial tires are the single biggest improvement you can make, and as long as you resist the urge to go plus diameter sizes on the wheels and short-sidewall tires, looks and ride quality shouldn't suffer. Brakes would be my next stop. While flatlanders will claim they're adequate, running out of brakes coming down off a mountain pass will disabuse you of that notion quickly. After those, other mods can improve handling to whatever level you desire but be aware that the original 'feel' and a lot of their charm will disappear at some point.

 

That's a testament to the ability of a good mechanic, and a good driver. The Chevelle's 4-link style coil spring rear suspension & 10+ years advance in front suspension geometry and steering has a lot more potential than the older chassis. Same with the Camaro, with more engine set back and lower center of gravity, they can handle far more g-forces than the old tri-5 chassis, not really comparable. But, a good tuner & driver can work wonders, as you experienced.

 

I agree completely, not really a fair comparison. Thanks for sharing.

Just to clarify, a Camaro is not really a muscle car, it's a pony car. Muscle cars were mid-sized cars fitted with big block engines. For Chevy that means the Chevelle & Monte Carlo, and I guess the El Camino (all 3 used the same chassis). But I realize the term Muscle Car gets used pretty much for anything in mid 60's to very early 70's era. Still, a Camaro handles very different from a Chevelle, and both are a decade + more advanced over the tri-5 Chevy's. As Squirrel posted in about the 2nd post I think, 10 years made a big difference back then. Sure, a tri-5 can be made to handle much better than stock, but so can a 69 Camaro, so as @jnaki said, it's not really a fair comparison. But, if you're just wondering if a tri-5 can be made to handle decently, not wallow or lean excessively, not push bad through the turns, yeah they can. They are a classic car that will always be a favorite among enthusiasts.

 

I've heard it called poor man's power steering here. But with an adequate steering wheel diameter, i don't see any issue with the stock setup. I really like the way my car is in stock configuration. My wife seems to have to put more effort into turning the wheel when sitting still. So maybe you just need someone to hold your purse while you're driving i guess if you want a car to drive like a muscle car, you should probably buy a muscle car

 

I have used the idler arm with bearings on several trifives. It makes a big difference. Had one on my 57 Fuely that was basically a dead stock 283/283 BelAir FI car. Wife could easily drive it-no problem.

 

So doesn't the idler arm bushings flex when you turn the wheel, assisting in bringing the wheels back straight?

 

That's caster's job. (had typed camber earlier)

 

As for stock, some came with bearings from the factory.

 

Both statements can be true. Rubber bushings were common on some cars with power steering as they sometimes needed 'help' with returning to center, the 'torsion spring' effect of the rubber bushings provided that.

 

I've never seen front wheels go straight while vehicle was on jack stands and both front wheels off the ground.

 

You've got a point

 

They didn't have that much 'spring' in them. I'm not all that familiar with GM steering, but that was a common practice at Ford with their linkage-assist PS, but they got used on even some manual steering cars. The more camber you have, the less the need for them but low-speed steering effort would go up. These would allow a reduction in camber for centering with little penalty in steering effort.

 

I didnt read the whole thread but i think itll ride perfectly fine..
In my opinion, the whole “handles like a boat” thing of them era cars applies to non restored ones... people who usually get them, repaint them, redo the engine and dont put any effort into the worn out suspension pass around that myth. Youre going after a restored one, itll handle perfectly fine.

 

It's actually Caster angle that causes the wheels to center, Camber is the top of the tire leaning in(negative) or out(positive).

On straight axles with leaf springs on each side you could set caster by placing wedge shims between the axle and leaf springs