New cars in the 50's...

I blame lack of accurate tooling and balancing, along with poor filtration system coupled with low quality straight weight oil as being the reason for lack of longevity of motors in the 50's. The fact that when a Carburetor is not properly set it results in fuel running past the pistons into the oil and you have a recipe for disaster. I think if properly maintained the engines of the fifties can and do last longer than 40,000 miles, but I don't think most people did.

 

The first Vega would rust before it got off the show room floor. I can remember when 10k on a set of tires was a big deal.

 

I have a book titled, "Chevy Power Guide" by Bill (Grumpy) Jenkins first published in 1968. On page 15, a guy with a stone hone in a 1/2" Craftsman drill is honing a small block on the shop floor. He is cutting the final .0025" that way. And this is a race engine. There's a bit more precision nowdays.

 

the old 235 and 216 chevs went about 10,000 miles and needed new rings but they were easy to assemble I could assemble my 54 in about 2 hours not many parts. they had rock catchers for air cleaners and sucked a lot of dirt, poor oil and no technology compared to now days
I do have one of the old crank grinders and dont figure out how it worked, it got a lot of cars back on the road around here, had a tire turning deal to make the crank round and some long grinding arbors
want to buy??

 

Rust out was a big issue. It was not uncommon to have a car 5 or 6 years old with a new paint job to cover the repairs. Also the side molding was put on with clips through holes. Salt and rain got in quickly and the fun began. The engines had more bore wear then because they had straight cast iron in them, with no alloys. I remember my father's new cars showing signs of rust long before the engines were getting tired though. I also remember my uncles 6 year old car had a 2x4 under the front seat to keep it from going through the rotten floor.

 

Of course, there are exceptions to the generalities posted here. Cadillacs always had very high nickel contents in their blocks and extremely tight machining tolerances - no recommended break-in periods even into the '70s.

My buddy had numerous late '50s & early-mid '60s daily drivers with high miles on original engines ('65: 165K, '59: 148K, '65: 125K, '65: 145K, '64: 143K, '61: 130K, '66: 166K, '64: 145K, '64: 146K, '64: 144K) with no known or apparent overhauls and all ran well. We tore the 145K '65 apart in '86 & it had no bore ridges in any cylinders.
Early-mid '50s cars may very well have been notably worse tho...

 

yuh!. after having the ol 235 in my 49. i could see that. and thats drive'n like a granny!..

 

The same is often true today though, it really depends on how people take care of them.

Now days anywhere from 180,000-250,000 miles and the cars are usually about done. Having more things going wrong with them than there worth. By this time they're usually about 10 years old too.

My dads truck has about 300,000 and he hasn't replaced anything except the evap coil for the a/c. It goes through no oil what so ever, amazing really. It's well maintained but not exsesive. Still has the original u-joints, exaust (still quiet), ball joints, ect.

 

Early 50's cars also ran a lot more rpm's on the highway than the more powerful ohv motors did. Running a flathead at 3k plus all day wares it out quickly.

 

Remember, folks - this was during the Korean War, and some shortages were reinstated similar to WWII days.

Much of the chromed potmetal parts suffered pits and bubbles - giving rise to the term, "Korean Chrome".
Some cars started rusting right on the lot, leaving dealers to repair the bodywork before being sold.

Studebaker had more nickel content in their motors, so they lasted longer.
They also had very tough valve seats, so tough that unleaded fuel didn't really bother them.

 

My Dad was a traveling salesmen ... he put 50 to 60 thousand miles a year on a new car. He had a new 55, 56, two new 57's, 58, 59, 60 and two 1961 Chevrolets. He had one of the first 57 Chevrolets in our area. At 40 thousand, he sold it and bought another new 57 Chevrolet 2 door wagon. In 1961 he had two new Chevrolets ( lost one in a wreck ... not his fault. ) He got a new one while the other was being repaired. Could not stay off the road for 2 or 3 weeks ... so he just bought a new one ... sold the repaired 61 when he got it back. Even with good maintenance ... 50 to 60 thousand was starting to show wear problems and it was better to sell and buy a new one.

In 1962, he was promoted and traveled less.
He still got a new vehicle every other year or so ... until he retired in the early 80's.

I put a LOT of miles on a vehicle in a year ... and I usually put 150 thousand miles on a Chevrolet truck before I buy another new one (usually every 6 to 7 years ) . My brother is getting ready to replace his 5 year old Tahoe ( with 160 thousand miles ) ... and it still runs great and uses no oil.

 

I just went looking for it again, but can't find it. There was an ad I saw recently from a Plymouth dealer in '58 offering a "bump and paint" special for salesmen to keep their car looking new. And the image had a bodyman working on a '57 Plymouth.

How many cars today need a repaint after one year?

 

Wild... I had no idea. So for in-car engine rebuilds, they did the rings too?

 

Michigan + Detroit (car manufacturing mecca at one time) + salt = planned obsolescence? Perpetual new car buyers? Hmmmm

It's funny now-a-days, when you mention to a younger person (say- under 40), that you have over 100,000 miles on your car, they don't bat an eye. Tell my 85 year old Grandmother that you just bought a 6 year old car with 70,000 miles, she thinks you're the biggest idiot in the world...times change.

 

rings, bearings, valve grind, new gaskets. That was a common rebuild back then. I owed a guy some money one time back in the early 60's, the payback was putting one new rod bearing in for him. No head off or anything like that, just pulled the pan and did the job.

 

He must be talkin foriegn cars. In that era, they were junk

In the 50's we didn't need hardened seats, and metal was much better, and more readily available than what's used today. Oiling systems of the 50's American cars remained pretty much the same for MANY years

 

Depends on the region the car "lives" in. NOT the era the car's built in. In New York, when I was a kid, cars would have mega rust from the salted roads during snow season with less than 15K miles on the clock.

.[/quote]

 

My dad bought a 56 Chrysler,with 25k on it for $800,in '58. The guy he bought it from said "I know it has alot of miles on it,but i've taken real good care of it." My mom almost wouldn't let him buy it. he had that car for about ten years. Then he bought a '57 Chrysler 300,conv. for $1000. Had that one for about 5 years.

 

three words: electronic fuel injection. Gas isn't washing down the inside of the engine much anymore.

 

I used to work in the automotive industry in Detroit as an engineer. One "old timer" told me once that there weren't really any adequate rust inhibitors until the mid-1970's. They knew that metal would dissolve - or rust - at a certain rate per year, so they would decide how long they wanted a component to last and make the steel thick enough to last that amount of time. That's the biggest reason old cars were built so heavy. As fuel consumption became more important they looked for ways to lighten the cars, so they developed better rust inhibitors. As they did, parts became thinner and lighter. If you lived in a drier climate than Detroit then your cars just lasted longer. We're still benefitting from these drier climates today as we find old tin out West.

 

I was reading the "letters to the editor" portion of one of my old Car Crafts or R&Cs from the mid 50s and there were quite a few letters in there from guys stating that they didn't think Detroit was doing quality work because a lot of the "used" cars they were picking up were knocking and had rust in the usual places you find nowadays.

 

[/quote]

That's funny. When I lived near Montreal, we used to go to northern NY and was always amazed by the clean cars down there. I owned a 71 LeMans in 79, it had no floor on the passenger side. Sold it & bought a 72 Nova, lost an axe through the fender while driving on a camping trip, and when it rained, water sprayed up from the bottom of the windshield. Quebec was the worst place I have ever seen for rust.