Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical List your favorite goofup by ford and GM. This may cause a war!!!

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by birdman1, Aug 13, 2020.

  1. xhotrodder
    Joined: Jul 2, 2009
    Posts: 1,595

    xhotrodder
    Member

    I think the 59 Ford rear tail lights were a big mistake on Ford's behalf. As far as the Chevy mistakes I would say the wood inside the doors on a lot of the early models.
     
  2. Nostrebor
    Joined: Jun 25, 2014
    Posts: 1,072

    Nostrebor
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Crazy talk. Certainly could be one of GM's most misunderstood cars, perhaps even by their own marketing folks, but far from a joke. I assume this is coming from someone with no actual experience with these cars.

    I agree that GM stuck with wood for far too long, and that Ford really misread the market with the Edsel.
     
    LAROKE, ClarkH and lothiandon1940 like this.
  3. Those awful Mustang sharp pointed wind wings that could impale a person is my no. 1 vote followed by The Crosley "Hot Shot" name. A 40 Cubic inch engine car will never be a "Hot Shot" in its original stock form.
     
  4. Chrysler producing three different hemi blocks: one each for the Chrysler, Dodge and DeSoto. Just think how smart it would have been to design the block just a bit lighter yet still able to accommodate displacements from the 331 to the 392 and put them in to all four - Plymouth included - car models. The interchangeability would have saved them millions of dollars, I bet.
     
  5. OLSKOOL57
    Joined: Feb 14, 2019
    Posts: 468

    OLSKOOL57
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Amen!! To That!!
     
    lothiandon1940 likes this.
  6. OLSKOOL57
    Joined: Feb 14, 2019
    Posts: 468

    OLSKOOL57
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    l guess I’m odd, always liked Mopars from 62-65.
     
    57 Fargo and lothiandon1940 like this.
  7. Fordors
    Joined: Sep 22, 2016
    Posts: 2,958

    Fordors
    Member

    I agree, it was a beautiful design but the $10,000 price tag was a bit much when Joe Lunchbox could buy a new house for $19,000. Then there was the recession that started in 1957 and continued in 1958, I think Ford’s marketing people saw the hand writing on the wall.
     
  8. Baumi
    Joined: Jan 28, 2003
    Posts: 2,521

    Baumi
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Cracks w part#s in Ford flatheads, flat cams in 307 Chevys, bad topend oiling and therefor ticking valve trains in Y Block Fords, spider gears made of glass in Tri5 Chevys(actually up to 64),drug abuse at the Mopar design centers since the mid 50s,those bigass Ford starters on Y Blocks and Flatheads ....
     
    Truckdoctor Andy likes this.
  9. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,290

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    They did clue in, about 1955. They went to work and designed the B/RB series of big blocks that debuted in 1958. They were made for 20 years in displacements from 350 to 440 cu in and were the mainstay of their performance and luxury cars, Dodge trucks and motorhomes. They have their fans, even today, and are hard to beat for power and torque with long life and reliability, at a decent price.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  10. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,290

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    In Ford's defense they brought out 5 all new cars in 10 years, 1955 - Thunderbird, 1958 - Edsel, 1960 - Falcon, 1962 - Fairlane, and 1964 1/2 - Mustang.
    Every one was a smash hit except the Edsel. I dare say any director who made 5 movies in 10 years and had 4 box office smashes, or a ball team that won the World Series 4 times out of 5, would be taking bows and deserve them.
     
  11. The '50s/early '60s were interesting times. There was a lot of technological progress that had excited the general population and Detroit tried to capitalize on it with very uneven success. They threw all sorts of things at the wall, but more than a few didn't stick...

    GM tried EFI, aluminum motors, auto-dimming headlights, and the Corvair. The auto-dimmer couldn't tell the difference between car lights and street lights. The Corvair could be a dangerous car; a buddy had a early turbo spyder 'vert and at 90 mph (a speed it had little trouble making) the front end could come off the ground and swap ends. After the second time it did that, he got rid of it...

    Chrysler also tried EFI, and started building 'unibody' cars; the end result of that being they became known as rust buckets. And they had no better luck with EFI than GM did.

    Ford was always more conservative compared to GM or Chrysler, so they limited their high-tech to the retractables and the TeleTouch. But even these were ahead of the curve in terms of real-world reliability and unfortunately for Ford, they actually sold a lot of them.

    Styling-wise, in the mid-late 50's GM and Chrysler went head-to-head on styling excess with varying rates of success. Again, Ford was more conservative; they usually limited their more extreme designs to the Mercury/Edsel (while it lived)/Lincoln nameplates.
     
    blowby likes this.
  12. sunbeam
    Joined: Oct 22, 2010
    Posts: 4,969

    sunbeam
    Member

    Chrysler did build three different hemis in 55 how many gm v8s were there?
     
  13. studebakerjoe
    Joined: Jul 7, 2015
    Posts: 707

    studebakerjoe
    Member

    @Crazy Steve GM didn't try EFI in the 50s 60s that I'm aware of. They did have Fuel Injection in Chevy and Pontiac, but it was mechanical. Only Mopar and AMC/Rambler tried EFI in the 50s. Unless of course another American manufacturer did that I'm unaware of.
     
    LAROKE likes this.
  14. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,290

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    Oddly enough, it was the 1960 tail lights that got criticized by Ford execs. It was the first year since 1952 that they did not have round tail lights, and the worst sales. Some thought it was the tail lights, some thought the 60 Ford was too sophisticated for working class buyers. This is why the 61 is a throwback to 1957 and why they went back to round tail lights at least until 1965 or 66.
     
    blowby likes this.
  15. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 18,693

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    The man that designed the electrical system for the retractable ended up in a nut house.... :confused:o_O:rolleyes:
     
    texasred and lothiandon1940 like this.
  16. belair
    Joined: Jul 10, 2006
    Posts: 8,525

    belair
    Member

    So did a lot of guys who had to work on them, I bet.
     
    lothiandon1940 and Deuces like this.
  17. RmK57
    Joined: Dec 31, 2008
    Posts: 1,589

    RmK57
    Member

    I love my Fords and what they have accomplished for over a hundred years but I still shake my head at the uni-body pickups. If you desired a truck with less hauling ability just but a Ranchero.
     
  18. 03GMCSonoma
    Joined: Jan 15, 2011
    Posts: 233

    03GMCSonoma
    Member

    Ford should have put hair around the horse collar and called it Ethel.
     
  19. clem
    Joined: Dec 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,989

    clem
    Member

    such a dud of an engine, and yet still so ever ever popular............doesn’t make sense does it..........?
     
    Baumi likes this.
  20. clem
    Joined: Dec 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,989

    clem
    Member

    would not have made any difference to either hotrodding or humanity.
    I think the issues were related to styling and lack of cylinders.........
     
  21. blowby
    Joined: Dec 27, 2012
    Posts: 6,855

    blowby
    Member
    from Nicasio Ca

    GM tried air suspension around '57-'58, not sure how long that lasted.

    What was the idea behind the SBC splayed valve covers?
     
  22. Chrisbcritter
    Joined: Sep 11, 2011
    Posts: 1,853

    Chrisbcritter
    Member

    Particularly when they'd come up with this clean, trim, elegant update of the design for 1958:
    berline.jpg
    berlineLCMarkIIIprototype12-08001.jpg
    ...which they scrapped in favor of the overdone cross-eyed monster we got instead.
     
    belair likes this.
  23. 73RR
    Joined: Jan 29, 2007
    Posts: 6,392

    73RR
    Member

    ...I think that he must have also worked for Lucas...:p

    .
     
  24. Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  25. carbking
    Joined: Dec 20, 2008
    Posts: 2,866

    carbking
    Member

    Pre-1965:

    GM - the Rochester type B carburetor
    Ford - the Holley AA-1 carburetor
    Chrysler - the Ball & Ball carburetor (all of them, no specific model)

    Jon
     
    j-jock and Moriarity like this.
  26. winduptoy
    Joined: Feb 19, 2013
    Posts: 2,103

    winduptoy
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Chrysler Airflow
    Left front door is the same as the left rear door...
    Tucker
    Developed an engine that didn't have a camshaft but hydraulically operated the valves off a distributor valve body.
    Not enough battery to spin the engine fast enough to build pressure to operate the valves...

    Sent from my XT1585 using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
  27. When Chevrolet killed the Grand Sport project, that car would have made Carroll Shelby's life a lot harder.

    1963_Corvette_Grand_Sport_Track.jpg
     
    Elcohaulic likes this.
  28. Elcohaulic
    Joined: Dec 27, 2017
    Posts: 1,300

    Elcohaulic
    Member


    Actually, GM had the Turbo Hydramatic ready to go in 1957, it was copyright issues that held it up until 1963...

    The four speed Super Hydramatic was a decent transmission, I had one on a big Pontiac 462 and it never gave me any issue and I flogged that car. I though it was pretty cool how it would ground itself in third and fourth gears and feel like a stick....
     
  29. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,290

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    Would you like to elaborate on what was wrong with the B&B carburetor?
     
    j hansen likes this.
  30. blowby
    Joined: Dec 27, 2012
    Posts: 6,855

    blowby
    Member
    from Nicasio Ca

    Copyright, that's like words, right? How did that get in the way?

    I have enjoyed this thread, trying new things, some worked, some didn't. Maybe it stills goes on today but not with anything I would understand.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.