the fin man
CLARIFICATION to Volume VI, Issue 37, the early Chrysler transmissions and Fluid Drive: The transmission was very interesting. I believe it consisted of two fans in an oil bath followed by a regular clutch followed by a two speed with reverse gear both operated by the gear shift on the steering wheel followed by a two speed gear box which was operated by the accelerator. The gear shift lever which looked like an ordinary gear shift had no first gear position. There were four forward gears and two rear gears but you could not go through the gears. You put the car in high gear, released the clutch and did not touch any thing but the gas pedal unless you wanted to go in reverse. You could put the car in the second gear position and start and let up on the gas and it would shift into what we called low high. Then you could use the clutch to shift the gear to the high lever position and the car would be in high-high.
Long time reader Dick Lodge writes:
Perhaps a minor nitpick. The Chrysler Corp semi-automatic transmission was not called Fluid Drive. All Chrysler products except the
...and from Thomas W. Werner:
Your articles regularly bring up cars and subjects from my younger days. You talked about the 42 Desoto and Chrysler's transmission. My uncle owned a 41 Chrysler which I drove about 50 miles. My father bought a 50 Chrysler in January of 1950 which was my date car. One girl lived on
In addition you could put the car in reverse, start up and let up on the gas pedal and it would shift into reverse high. I did this a few times to show off. Because the car had the fluid drive which was not very efficient, you could start the engine with the gear shift lever in reverse, first, and high. On the other hand the fluid cushion kept you from putting stress on the engine or transmission. I also did this a few times also to show off but it was a good idea to hold the brake when you did it. In regular driving you used two gears and shifted by letting up on the gas but it would down shift if necessary for a load or hill. I really hated to see Chrysler take the clutch out of their cars which I believe happened in 1951 but do not hold me to that date.
I made reference to the elimination of the side "cove" on the Mustang II. This was an error. That paragraph should have read as follows: "About the only styling cues carried over from earlier "stangs" were that pony grill, and the signature Mustang side "coves."
Alert reader John Anderson wrote to inform me of my errors in the story about the '61 Impala. The '61 was not quite as unique as I made it out to be. I made the mistake of considering only the unique roofline treatments of the COUPE for '61. It was the only year in which that "bubble top" was used across the board for GM coupes... with the single exception of the 1962 Bel Air. I DID mention this in my column, however, I inadvertently keyed "Impala" into the text when I meant to key in "Bel Air." Thanks John and all the other regular readers who, occassionally have to straighten me out!
Our apologies to
Alert reader Dave Mueller caught this one: The correct answer to question 4 was Steely Dan, NOT Ace. Thanks Dave!
Clarification and correction to Volume V, Issue 40- 1955-56 Dodge La Femme:
A number of alert (and knowledgeable) readers sent e-mails to me regarding the year of the car in the picture. It IS a 1956 model Dodge La Femme. A caption, such as the one on this web site, should have identified the car in the photo as a 1956 model. Unfortunately, as often is the case, the caption is eliminated in the editing process after I send the story to the newspapers, in an effort to save space.
In two locations, I mistyped a year as 1992. In both cases it should have read 1962.
A couple of readers wrote to let me know that the 1960 engine was NOT a "L-head" engine as I had listed it. The error was a result of information I picked up from the "50 Years of American Automobiles" by the editors of Consumer Guide. Their spec tables in the back of the book listed the engine as the "L-6" which was a reference to the model number NOT the engine block/head design.
• The President of Studebaker Corporation was Sherwood Egbert NOT Egbert Smith as listed.
• The correct spelling of the famed automotive designer responsible for the Avanti was Raymond "Loewy" NOT "Lowey."
• Loewy's home where the design team for the Avanti gathered was in
The Packard web site address is www.packardclub.org, not www.packardclub.com.
Reader Paul Beaulieu writes:
Greetings from the Great White North! I just read a copy of your Camaro article, and while I find it refreshing to read an article about the second generation GM F-body that doesn't slam the cars, your article does contain some erroneous information.
First, "The base Camaro was powered by Chevrolet's demure 235 cubic inch six cylinder engine with a single barrel Rochester carb"... the base engine was the 250 inch L6.
Second, "the new Camaro rode the same 117" wheelbase as its predecessor"... the wheelbase was 108".
Third, "The second generation Camaro ran for ten years with only moderate styling changes"... the second generation F car ran from mid 1970 through 1981. The only sheet metal common to all years were the door skins and roof panel.
Fourth, "Due to slow sales of 1969 models, introduction of the 1970 Camaro was held up until late February of 1970"... incorrect. 243,085 1969 Camaros were sold, up from 235,147 the previous year. The late introduction is attributed by most to tooling problems with the new body, so the production run of 1969 cars was extended.
Fifth, "expect to pay between 35 and 40 thousand dollars for a showroom new Z28 SS/RS"... the RS style appearance group was available on the SS or Z28, however, the Z28 option was not available on SS cars. You could, however, have a Z28/LT, Z28/RS, RS/SS, LT/SS, or RS/LT.
Not meaning to rain on your parade, as I applaud your efforts, but I felt that this should be corrected. If you want further information about the second generation Camaro, almost anything you could ever want to know can be found here: http://www.nastyz28.com. The website has been mentioned in Car Craft magazine as perhaps THE definitive source of knowledge pertaining to the 1970-1981 Camaro. No, it's not my site, but I am a member of the Second Generation Camaro Owners Group.
The FIN MAN replied:
Regarding your first issue, the Standard six cylinder engine size- from "50 Years of American Automobiles, 1939-1989" Consumer Guide, the standard Camaro engine for 1970 was the 230 cubic inch L6 rated at 140 h.p. The 250 cube, 155 horse is listed as an optional six. This is where I got the info on the standard six (I must have written "235" if you are correct (haven't double checked MY site yet on this detail) instead of 230 as listed in above book. HOWEVER... apparently the editors of this publication were in error, probably due to the confusion over when the '69 model ended and the '70 began, as the 230 was standard in 1969 as you probably know. My belief that the Consumer Guide book was in error is because, upon further investigation, I found the "Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975" lists the standard six cylinder engine in 1970 as being the 250 cubic inch model as you indicated. (Score one for Paul)
Second issue, regarding wheelbase- I WAS in error, as I read the dimension of the full size Chevrolet (117") instead of the Camaro. All models were listed in one paragraph of fairly small type. The S.C.A.C. (Krause Publications) lists the 1969 Camaro's wheelbase at 108" but the 1970 is shown at 106". Further research on this point, however, resulted in the discovery that, evidently S.C.A.C. (considered the "bible" of old car specs) was in error on this one, as the Consumer Guide book's specification section lists both gen 1 and gen 2 as riding on a 108.1" WB. (I knew I read that somewhere.) (Score one more for Paul)
Regarding the issue of "second generation" definition and length of term... do we really disagree here? I realize that 1970-1981 is eleven years, not ten... I was simply taking artistic license by rounding off to an even decade. To quote snipits from the Consumer Guide publication... "Announced in the spring of 1970 was a brilliant all-new second-generation Camaro ('69s were sold as '70s through the previous December) with dramatic European-inspired GT styling." Again, as stated in the Consumer Guide book, the '74s were "facelifted at each end to meet that year's required 5 mph impact bumpers" and, "a wraparound rear window marked the '75s." (That doesn't spell next generation to me.) Next... "with another effective 'facelift' (there's that word again) for 1978, the durable second-generation continued through 1981." Finally from CG... "a smaller new third-generation Camaro was a foregone conclusion by then, and it duly arrived for 1982 on a trim 102" wheelbase." (Score one point for The FIN MAN.)
Now, for the fourth issue, slow sales of '69 models- "tooling problems" sounds like a GM marketing guru's trumped up excuse for stalling to clear out the previous year's models (1969). True, sales for up over 1968, but by a miniscule margin... 3%. Again from the Standard Catalog of American Cars... "due to slow sales of 1969 Camaros, no new design was introduced for this series at 1970 model introduction time in the fall of 1969. Chevrolet dealers continued to sell leftover units until supplies ran out." This being said, however, the numbers don't seem to support this theory, as production numbers for 1967 through 1972 are, 220,917; 235,115; 243,095; 124,889 (short six month run of 1970-1/2, but even doubled it is still only 250,000); 114,630; 68,656 (what's going on here?!?!) Doesn't make sense to me. (Let's call this one a draw.)
Finally... (applause, applause) and last but not least, that whole thing about the Z28/LT, Z28/RS, RS/SS, LT/SS, or RS/LT-- well, that's just WAY TOO DAMN CONFUSING... especially at midnight! I'm tired... going to bed!