(first posted 7/24/2015) There are few demarcations in time quite as pronounced as a new decade. It’s like taking all the enthusiasm of each of the previous ten years and bundling it up into one big package of jubilation and excitement.
With each new decade, there are always a few carry-overs or lingering relics. While this 1960 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 could be considered as such, it and its 1959 model cohort were more of a bridge between what was during the 1950s and what was hoped to be in the 1960s.
This Oldsmobile was a product of the Space Age, that time of glorious optimism about lassoing the stars and bringing them closer to home. The sheer presence of this Oldsmobile emits the futuristic, Buck Rogers visage that was so popular at the time. 1960 was a new decade in a time when anticipation of future achievements ran high; the sky was no longer a constraint as man would be on the moon by the end of the decade and would later send exploratory devices on voyages to the furthest reaches of the solar system and beyond. How could one be immune to the giddy optimism?
Few automakers were as overtly obvious and passionate about the new, uncharted territories to be conquered during the 1960s than Oldsmobile. Having a rocket as your logo, that vessel for taking man to ever greater heights, was likely the most visible automotive recognition of this yearning to break free of the atmospheric confines always known to mankind.
Even if one’s new Oldsmobile was incapable of space flight, having a posterior mimicking the fins of a rocket certainly worked to build daydreams about such novel means of travel. Not settling for simply thrusting a rocket name onto every V8 powered car it built, Olds took the vision of future endeavors to new heights – or at least accentuated the theme.
Dynamic 88. Not just 88, but Dynamic 88. Dynamic, a word that conjures visions of a fertile cocktail of motion, vigor, and vitality, a name that not only insinuated action but captivated the mind with fluid motion and effortless movement. It was a grand name, a name too short for this world, a name that appeared more upbeat than Super 88 or even Ninety-Eight. Not a bad trade-off for being the bottom trim level of the mid-grade GM product.
Marketing works wonders; an attractive car blessed with a captivating name yielded this Dynamic 88 sedan to be the most successful Oldsmobile of 1960. While its standard 240 horsepower engine, or even the optional power plant packing an additional 20 horsepower, were never going to be adequate for interstellar travel, they worked quite well thrusting 4,100 pounds of B-body over prairie and mountains alike.
Despite being unable to deliver anything beyond mere earthbound voyages, Oldsmobile sure made ordinary journeys sound as if new adventure was lurking just around the corner. Jet Away power steering; while less grandiose than a rocket, a jet was just about the next best thing. Fabric on the ceiling billed as Star Lite, sure to add a twinkle to all your typically mundane adventures. Roto-matic power steering, perhaps a less inviting sounding name, still worked to instill confidence of your Oldsmobile digging into a groove and safely delivering you to your next outpost. All of this wrapped into a Quadri-Balanced ride that will make your Dynamic 88 feel as if you and your passengers were riding among the clouds.
Like the hopes of every new decade soon fade, so too does the orbit of every projectile before its inevitable return to the earth. By 1967, the Dynamic 88 had fallen into the abyss, a black hole that has effortlessly swallowed terrific model names since the beginning of automotive industry. Did the orbit of the Dynamic name cease due to a lack of sales fuel or did it fall prey to the relentless gravity of the surface? It was likely neither; attention spans are short and another, seemingly better and more trendy, name was sought. The newly christened Delmont simply did not possess the auditory splendor of Dynamic, a model name that upstaged so many of the others found at The General in 1960.
Every projectile has a duration of flight. Our black Olds certainly was among the fortunate to have been able to bask in the beauty of movement, providing exhilaration to an unknown number of owners and passengers for decades. One can’t help but wonder about the scenery she has flown through, the changes she has seen, the many seasons she has weathered. Each remarkable, each unique, all accompanied by the constant of a jet black Oldsmobile.
The eventual landing of all projectiles does create unusual landing places. If one looks carefully, it is obvious our Dynamic 88 landed among a pride of Panthers but not in any pride of panthers to be found in Africa. Landing in a safari of metal seems to be quite out of place for such a galactic inspired traveler. Or perhaps it plays to the perception of providing exquisite journeys to faraway lands; landing among Panthers certainly sounds more exotic than landing in the midst of a group of New Yorkers or Celebrities.
While our black Dynamic 88 has landed in the automotive purgatory known as a used car lot, it has found a special one. After being reunited with a cousin of the same age, our Dynamic 88 is refreshing itself for its next adventure. Cars, like rockets and jets, do need a little love before heading out for their next grand adventure.
Interesting that the green car next to it has returned to the same horizontal fin-shelf theme, coming from a different direction. On modern cars this shelf developed from the spoiler, though it’s just symbolic by now. On the Olds, the shelf developed from a need to have fins that were different from Chrysler’s fins.
Convergent evolution.
I donno — I think it only looks like that because the green car (a late ’90s Pontiac Bonneville, it looks like) has such a sloping tail. Even on other cars with that treatment (1996–99 Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, Nissan U13 Bluebird/Altima, Infiniti J30/Nissan Leopard J.Ferie), the decklid spoiler isn’t necessarily that shelf-like. It is a weird coincidence that the Olds is parked next to one that is, but I don’t see it as convergent evolution.
Can you imagine…….
Living in the Netherlands, as a kid my friend’s dad had this car as the ninety-eight in light metallic blue with blue upholstery.
‘t was a dream car from another planet which made my dad’s Peugeot 403 look like a poor silly piece of metal.
These Oldses had courtesy lights allover inside the car while our Pug had one poor plastic inner light, it had power steering, a radio with a ‘wonderbar’ to find radio stations, interval on the wipers, electric window washer, an automatic gearbox, a hughe V8, power windows, seats that would move electically no, no European car manufacturar could make something like that , Mercedes and Rolls Royce were lightyears behind the American auto industry which dominated the world.
Tinted windows, no European car had tinted windows back then, this had it all……
This hughe Oldsmobile would have Porsche 356’es and Triumph TR3’s for breakfast, their dad had the fastest car in the neighbourhood, Point taken !
Not even a Jaaag could cope with the Olds, the Jag would be to unreliable, the Olds would never break down, they kept the car till the late seventies and everything would still work, talking about quality !
I last time saw it sitting next to their industrial premises, the light blue dream from my childhood………..
Your Dad’s 403 was also pretty cool. Remember the cop show Columbo where the pompass villain would always be driving some Cadillac and the detective would always we trailing him relentlessly in his 403 saying “One more thing” as the rumpled everyman figuring out what seems to be a perfect crime. In one episode he even bragged about the radials when he caught the criminal by matching the tire track to the killer’s 450 SL, a small radial that only comes on fancy imports and then said his imported French car also had the same tire. Always the everyman he then admitted that his were kind of bald.
Thanks for taking the closeups of the space themed decoration, still present 55 years later. In addition to evoking a long ago era, They are mind blowing in their weight, complicated casting, and design. Some at the time probably thought of it has clown jewelry or mindless excess.
To paraphrase the article, this is the bottom trim of the midgrade GM. A car that was sold in 6 figures. Now a even high end car gives you plastic headlight covers that will yellow in 5 years. For all that weight savings they often come out heavier than this despite the 88’s heavy decoration and wasteful overhangs.
People will criticize these cars for there drum brakes, bias ply tires, wasteful V8s and smog. Paul could probably show us the obscure to us Opel that Olds should have been emulating, and the small parts they shared with Chevy. Instead lets take another look at this car and think of the journeys it has traveled, the first family that took it home, and the long gone America that created it.
Yes, these cars had loads of style, because that is what they were all about-style. The important bits, like a strong body, good brakes and adequate tires-to name only a few-were sadly lacking on these cars. Heck, they didn’t even have seat belts.
Indeed these cars sold in huge volumes, since the number of models in 1960 was minuscule compared to today. And where are they now? Well, they were designed for five years. One hundred thousand miles was considered ancient.
The America that created that car is gone and I doubt it ever existed. It is not coming back, and it was not nearly as idyllic as we want to think fifty odd years later.
I always wonder why cars like this end up on used-car lots. You’d think something like this would be more profitably sold on the collector market.
I was wondering the same thing, but for a sort of different reason. Here in Victoria, Aus. all cars sold off the dealers lot need to have a roadworthy certificate which means you wouldn’t see a classic like this.
Reminds me of another thing, that green 72 LTD Paul nearly ‘bought’ last year was originally found on a thrift shop lot. How common place are those lots?
Those lots are pretty common. They offer to come take your car and then let you take a charitable deduction off your income taxes based on the value. Some of the cars are scrapped, some given to poor people to use and some are resold.
In my observation, a fair number of used car dealers (certainly in Southern California) will have a couple of cars like this from time to time. How they get them may be in several ways — a charitable donation, as Jim says; an unusual trade-in; or, I think most commonly, someone ended up with a fairly nice old car and didn’t know how to go about selling it otherwise. Some of those come from estate sales or deaths in the family; pop or grandpa had this nice old car in the garage and now the kids don’t know what to do with it beyond a vague sense that it might be collectible.
The attraction for the used car dealer is that if the car is reasonably presentable, as this one is, it’s a nice traffic builder. Some dealers will clean the car up cosmetically (I don’t know about mechanically, but that’s always the question) and offer it at what I would cautiously call ambitious prices. These aren’t collector-car dealers, generally, and they won’t have many cars like this or very often.
Despite being in fairly good condition for an unrestored car of its age, it’s an Oldsmobile 4-door sedan. I’ve seen cars like this at collector car auctions, but not surprised this one is on a lot. Unlikely this would get bought by someone that would put-up the cash for a full restoration. If it was a 1960 Cadillac or at least a 2-door Olds then more likely to be worthwhile putting it in a collector auction or getting snatched-up by a dealer that specializes in collector cars.
4 door sedans like this just don’t have the value to be taken seriously by collector dealers unless they are really mint. This car made me think how cool it would be to tastefully modify the car to work as a daily driver with a modern v8 with cylinder deactivation and 6-8 speed transmission, suspension, etc without ruining it’s outward appearance. Because it’s a 4-door, though, you would rapidly get to a place where you would have way more into it than it would be worth.
Old cars like this are really destined to be orphans–look at craigslist and see how many 30’s–60’s sedans are out there for really reasonable prices and in good condition whereas their coupe and convertible counterparts are far more valuable, even in relatively poor condition.
There’s an old truism in the collector car market- ” Four slams, no clams”. If you are looking for an affordable fifty of sixties car these are the low hanging fruit. usually these cars are found in better unrestored shape than the desirable models. This is the best way to enjoy and experience the more interesting cars from the past. For most of us this is the only way we can afford to have a car of this type.I have always preferred the sexier convertible and hardtop coupe variants but they are now so expensive all i can do is dream. The only caveat is to keep your investment low. Four doors make great drivers too.
Agreed. The problem with a car like this is that it’s too far gone to be anything but a driver, assuming that it runs and drives well. A 2 door could start with something like this and be made nice. But this sedan is not nice enough to be the kind of hobby car that someone wants to be proud of, and it needs too much to be made into one.
That said, a 371 cid Oldsmobile V8 and an old-style Hydra-Matic could be an intoxicating combination to live with.
I don’t know that it needs too much, except maybe in the interior. There appears to be very little rust and all the trim is there–depends on the mechanical condition. But either way it’s also the perfect entry point to the collector car hobby, just because the value isn’t stratospheric. I’d be proud to drive this car in its current condition–just find some correct hubcaps and put a seat cover over that ripped bench.
Amazing to think of a time when the 371 was the base engine in the smallest Olds!
Its not like that here the number of doors doesnt diminish collectability, we never had 2 door versions of any American cars new ;ocally assembled since the 40s so this Olds in this condition as a driving compliable car would make 30k all day long with NZ rego 50k and the lack of brakes and poor roadholding can be fixed if you so desire but its only original once and thats where the value is.
Ive been selling parts to a guy who paid 14k for a Superminx estate the same model as mine that just has a fresh paint job and wide steelies so imagine what this Olds Dynamic would fetch.
Not being a restorer myself, I had not thought about that. I guess this helps explain why I recently saw two ’59-60 Olds 4-doors for sale in the same week–and this was in upstate NY. I thought it an odd coincidence, but maybe it wasn’t.
One of your best ever, JS! I have had a flame for the 60 Olds since childhood. I never knew anybody who had one but there was something about the look of this car that was just right. The perfect balance between flamboyance and conservatism.
Also “Dynamic 88” is one of the best names ever! I am glad you gave that name the attention it deserves. “Delmont” was such a letdown when it replaced the Dynamic. I always wondered how Dynamic failed to outrank “Super”, especially given the Buick vibe that Super gave off.
Last thought: Does this car have the plainest dash of anything from 1960? Or at least anything not made in South Bend. I was expecting so much more from this dash. Oh well, that delicious Oldsmobile extra extra deep dish steering wheel makes up for it. Best steering wheel ever.
Also, mustn’t forget my favorite 60 Olds.
No way is that dash anywhere near as bland as the plain, boring stuff that came out of South Bend on Studebakers. For starters, I think that’s a ‘thermometer’ type speedometer where a little red bar comes across below the numbers to indicate the speed, similar to what Ford was using on Thunderbirds until 1967.
’58 Studes had a *vertical* thermometer speedo. So much for their being “plain”.
Thank you!
Whatta sweetie ~ !
I’d polish this old car until it shone , peak & tweak it then run the wheels off it but I remember what an impact they made on me when new ~
This one really deserves a $40,000.00 restoration .
This kind will never pass out way again and that’s a sad thing .
-Nate
If only that was a green final generation Eighty-Eight next to it, and not a Bonneville 🙁 Would make for an interesting comparison shot.
Nice looking car overall. I’ve always found the 1959 Oldsmobile more attractive.
Dynamic! You almost can’t say it without an exclamation mark; whereas Delmont sounds like a brand of canned fruit.
To me Delmont conjures up the image of a balding wallflower of a man who still lives in his mother’s basement at age 40.
(No offense to anyone actually named Delmont, but that’s what I picture…)
“Delmont 88” came from a committee. By the late 1960s, GM was well on its way to Leadership By Committee, with help from Leadership By Bean Counter.
Delmont, by the way, is the name of two US cities, one in Pennsylvania where an Olds like this would be nothing more than a pile of brown flakes; and one in South Dakota. You’d likely never know about them, short of a Google search.
The Oldsmobiles are my least favorite of the ’59-’60 GM batmobile cars. It seems like they came off the worst with the narrow track that put the tires way back underneath the wheel-wells (and the reason the ‘Widetrack’ Pontiacs were such a hit). Then, they made it even worse when they accentuated this deficiency by adding the lower quarter panel fins.
I will admit, though, that the Olds did have the best looking tail-lights of those cars. In fact, a perfect 1960 Pontiac would have the Oldsmobile’s tail-lights.
As I started reading this article I tried to recall images of any and all 1960 domestic models. Would I remember one as being “head and shoulders” above the rest? Nope, not even my folks blue Country Sedan. They are vaguely interchangeable as far as I am concerned, though I know there are examples that if I saw them on a used car lot, I’d go back by for a 2nd look.
That said, if I was a fan of GM cars (I’m not) I wouldn’t necessarily be put off by this car being a 4 door sedan. If the price was right (in the 3 digits), and the condition was decent, I might consider this as the “bones” look attractive for a period inspired makeover.
My older brother’s friend drove a hand-me-down ’60 hardtop coupe, in white, and did I ever love that beast. It was riding in it that I first became aware of how different a Hydramatic car felt/shifted: first gear went by very quickly in normal driving, and the shifts came fast and more noticeable than on the softer automatics I was used to. I counted them, and Lo! there had to have been three shifts before getting into High. Four speeds!
I don’t think GM ever pointed out that its HM had four speeds in any advertising. I was rather shocked, and almost didn’t trust my ears.
The first time I drove a Hydramatic I was pretty shocked. The lo range lasted like 10 metres and the 2-3 shift was pretty rough. However, we never rebuilt one, and we did lots of comparable transmissions of the era, since we had a really good transmission technician, a German WW2 veteran, actually. He could rebuild anything!
The 2-3 shift on the first-generation Hydra-Matic is kind of a juggling act — there was a bunch of activity that needed to take place close to simultaneously, so it was very sensitive to band adjustment or uneven clutch pack engagement. (The dual-coupling transmissions were smoother, but the 2-3 was still firmer than the 1-2 or 3-4.) The good news was that the jerky shift quality was more annoying than anything else; I think the single-coupling transmissions could tolerate a fair bit of maladjustment without harming anything but the passengers’ nerves.
As somebody who has rebuilt many automatic tranny’s clutch pack clearance is essential to synchronized shifting. There is a reason clutch pack snap rings are offered in several different thicknesses. The thickness of the frictions and steels can vary widely.
The issue with the Hydra-Matic on the 2-3 shift is that there are four actions that have to happen in very close sequence: one clutch pack disengages, one band engages, one clutch pack engages, one band disengages. So, it’s also a more mechanically complicated action than on a TorqueFlite or Turbo Hydramatic.
The hydramatic you drove was defective
Yes, the hydramatic had 4 speeds and three planetary gear sets. Only two were used for the forward gears, with the third one for reverse. Low gear was both planetary gears in low (about 2.5:1 and 1.5:1-> 3.75:1). The first upshift would be a simple shift of the third gear planet to 1:1. Then both gears would have to shift together to get third gear. This was not always a smooth shift.
I know the basic design started with the safety transmission and hence the one planet set devoted to reverse. But, in the mid-50’s they did some redesign to smooth out the shifts, but the basic gearbox was not changed. What would make sense to me is to use all three planetary gears for forward gearing. One of them could have been used for reverse too. With two planetary gears giving about 1.4:1 and a third (third gear) about 1.33:1, the overall low gear would be about 2.6:1. The fluid coupling could have been replaced by a torque converter. Alternatively all three gears could have been lower (2@1.6:1 and a 1.5:1) with a fluid coupling. With either set up only one planet needs to shift at a time, which would have been much smoother I think. The 1:33 gear set could have been used as a 0.75 overdrive too.
They did change the gear ratios a little over the years, although the basic ratio spread remained pretty consistent. Also, they did make many of the changes you’re describing; the Roto Hydra-Matic, introduced for 1961, was essentially two-thirds of the four-speed Dual-Coupling unit. They removed the front planetary, reengineered the two remaining gearsets to get three forward speeds and reverse, and turned the smaller “dump-and-fill” coupling into a torque converter.
GM really didn’t get into overdrive top gears (not counting the separate overdrive units offered for a while by Chevrolet) until the ’70s. The general assumption was that direct drive would mean less noise and vibration and, particularly with the four-speed Hydra-Matic, you could get a good cruising ratio by simply selecting the proper axle ratio, relying on the short first gear (3.97:1 on the dual-coupling transmissions) to get you off the line.
From what I see about the Roto hydramatic, shift quality is not great, partly due to 2nd gear locking up. I think what they did to the second generation hydramatic made it more expensive to build and really did not change the basic gearbox. My suggestion would have redesigned the gearbox and not added more fluid couplings. What is not clear to me is whether the shift smoothness was due to the engine’s torque by passing the fluid coupling in 3rd (about 50%) and 4th gears (75%) or the problem of getting two planetary gear to shift together.
GM’s first use of overdrive automatics is the 200-4R in 1981. The torque converter clutch was implemented about this point in time too I think.
I think there were two major reasons for not doing a complete revamp of the Hydra-Matic layout, which was always more complicated than it probably needed to be: One, I assume they didn’t want to have to completely reinvent the wheel on tooling, considering how many transmissions they were churning out; and two, there were patent issues involved.
GM eventually conceded and licensed Howard Simpson’s patents, which underlay the Turbo Hydramatic (and the existing TorqueFlite and Cruise-O-Matic), but they held out for an awfully long time despite the fairly obvious fact that the Simpson gearset three-speed was simpler AND more efficient. I suppose if you’re producing more than half a million transmissions a year, having to pay per-unit royalties is not a trivial issue.
From what I understand the Simpson gearset combines two planetary gears into about one and a half, making for a simpler and cheaper three speed transmission. The torque converter is in front of the gearbox though, which means all of the engines torque goes through the torque converter, leading to more slip. But this also means that the torque converter can add some torque ratio at lower speeds in all gears.
GM did put off getting into the Simpson design. As a result, by the mid-70’s they were probably just getting the initial costs paid off, but this is when they could have used an overdrive 4 speed automatic. They could (and should) have put an overdrive gear between the engine and torque converter. This would have allowed the engine to run slower, while the torque converter would have remained at driveshaft speeds, keeping it coupled, reducing slip.
The 77 models, with a 4 speed transmission, would have been more efficient and better performing.
Yup, you and Canucklehead got the same experience I had in my 63 Cadillac, which was near the end of the line for the old-school H-M. That ultra-low first gear was really good for burnouts.
The shift quadrant on my Cad didn’t distinguish between the two “Drive” positions, one that used all 4 gears, the other topped out in 3rd. My sister drove my car about 60 miles in 3rd to pick me up at college once. It certainly didn’t seem to hurt the tranny. Other than getting new seals in it because of age-related leaks, it needed nothing. I asked the transmission guy how much if he had to go beyond seals, and he assured me that we would almost certainly not need to go there.
The Hydramatic was so strong it was used in several US armoured fighting vehicles.
The basic design was used. However, the gear ratios are not the same, so different planetary gears are used. See link here I suspect that the transmission is beefed up some.
The D3 range didn’t actually keep the transmission from shifting, it just raised the 3-4 shift point. It basically worked like the full-throttle kickdown switch: It would delay the upshift to whatever maximum speed the governor would allow, which was generally 70 to 75 mph with typical axle ratios. If you exceeded that speed, the transmission would still shift into fourth, so other than making for higher cruising rpm, which was really the point, I can’t see that driving 60 mph in D3 would hurt the engine or the transmission.
Holdens had the 4 speed hydramatic untill 63 and with only 75hp they slurred thru that slushbox quite slowly when they cloned a chevy six for the new ‘red’ engine 115 hp they deleted first gear I had that model the trans still worked yet the car was on its 3rd engine, once it got to top gear it just stayed there.
Delmont, really, the bottom feeder Holden was a Belmont I prefer Dynamic despite any deficiencies the car itself might have its a cool name.
I never liked the Delmont 88 name, it sounded so un-car like. Of the many prefixes for 88, Delta seemed to be the most popular and lasted long.
Regarding old 4 doors, they are good for old movies, for authenticity. Not everyone drove a shiny new convertible before 1972.
Yeah, Delmont is pretty bland, a little too close to Delmonte (“Hey, Bill, is your car a piece of fruit?”). I’d even rank it below Plaza, Savoy, and Belvedere.
I always liked the old Plymouth model names from New York hotels. Delmont, however seemed more like “Dullmont”. Bland, boring, but perfect in a way for the low-end trim on a middle market brand.
As a kid in the 50’s I wasn’t aware that “Plaza”, “Savoy” and “Belvedere” were fancy New York hotels. I WAS quite aware of every car and every name and knew that these names WERE affixed to low-end Plymouths. Funny that to this day I still associate these names with “economy” rather than “upscale”. Same with Bel Air and Biscayne…upscale as those Florida locations are they still mean entry-level Chevy.
Bel Air was a reference to California, not Florida.
“Delray” – an entry-level 1950s Chevy – is in Florida (Delray Beach on the east coast).
While “Bel Air” is indeed California, there is a “Belleair” between St. Petersburg and Clearwater in Pinellas County.
Truly a dynamic car. Someone who lived in the same part of Raleigh as I did had one in the early to mid 00’s, gray with a white roof. 4-door 6-window just like this otherwise. That car always turned my head when I saw it in traffic..unusual, unlikely to be called beautiful, but so, so very interesting and full of character.
The little “88” logo between the headlights is a wonderful detail I’d never noticed. Love to see things like that!
“The little “88” logo between the headlights is a wonderful detail I’d never noticed.”
Same for me as well – was that the reason why the headlights were spaced so far apart?
About the only thing I don’t like about this car is the wrap around screen, that clearly belongs to some other car.
Great write up, though!
Roger, after reading your statement, I had to look at this Olds again. What struck me – something I had never noticed – is how far into the roof the windshield / screen curves. Somewhat like a tall forehead on a man with a receding hairline.
Yes, the windshield not only wraps around the sides (which I like by the way) but high into the roof. Even after GM straightened out the A-pillars in the 1961-64 models, the B-body 2-door and 4-door sedans retained this super-tall windshield. I recall when we had our 1961 Chevy Bel Air 2-door sedan, my mother always folded the sunvisor against the windshield to cut down the sun’s glare.
They probably had complaints about the shorter mid-50’s windshields blocking the view of stoplights. We had a little wedge of a lens mounted on a suction cup that was sold to tackle that problem.
The ’59 GM cars looked like at last minute they “channeled” the 1958 bodies to lower the beltlines. The windshields look like 1949 designs grated on top.
Sure, these 59/60 GM’s are nice to look at and study, but they had poor brakes and no seat belts! People actaully thought being “thrown from the car” was safe?
Having been in a sudden meeting with a concrete lightpole while riding in a 60 Cheviac 6 Im well aware of how poorly these cars handle and crash we were rounding a turn at an intersection and suddenly turning went wrong and we slid sideways it was the death of the car it bent in the middle, however it was still driveable just and got crawled to a nearby wrecking yard with the tailshaft grinding on the X underneath.
It occurred to me that I’ve never driven a car with the Hydramatic. Yes on Powerglide, Roto-hydramatic, and of course various THMs, but never the original.
Driving this car wouldn’t change that — it has the second-generation dual-coupling H-M, which replaced the original in ’56.
My parents had a 63 Olds 88 wagon with 394 4 barrel carb and I think the hydramatic transmission. I did drive a number of times but at the time was not aware of just what the transmission was. It did not seem much different from the 58 Chrysler with torqueflite, but I did not drive the Chrysler much (and not on the highway). The first hydramatic might be different than the second though.
On a ’63 B-body, that would actually have been the third-generation Roto Hydra-Matic, which had three speeds and a torque converter, but was mechanically related to the previous four-speed. It didn’t operate like a TorqueFlite, although from the driver’s standpoint, the difference wouldn’t be super-obvious.
Looking at the old car brochures for Oldsmobile, the Roto HydraMatic was the only automatic available. I don’t remember much about it as I only drove it a few times. Automatic transmission are all more or less the same, you put it in D(rive) and away you go. With the 1950 Buick no shift, but otherwise one (63 Impala) or 2 shifts. When overdrive was finally added (my 86 Electra T-type) then there are 4 speeds. My 2007 SRX had 6 speeds.
Good article, Jason.
The don’t make em like they used to.
A very nice write-up. “that time of glorious optimism”. Boy was it ever. Sometimes the optimism crossed the line and became hubris, but when it was within bounds that optimism made people feel anything was possible. I wish we could get back that kind of confidence.
unDynamic
“These ’59-’60 GM cars sat on the frames of the rapidly aborted ’58’s bodies, a classic GM bean-counter move. The new bodies’ longer-lower-wider mantra had the unfortunate effect of making the wheels look lost in their wells. It made them look like an airplane whose wheels would retract on take-off, which one one hand would have been consistent with their aeronautical flavor. But as land-based actual cars, it made them look wimpy, and decidedly undynamic. Hardly the image Knudsen had in mind.”
Paul wrote that and I remembered it. That Olds was, to my eye, the opposite of dynamic, especially when compared w/ the much more dynamic wide-tracking Pontiac
My best friend’s mom had one in Charcoal Mist. She was friends with the tire dealer’s wife and I noticed that she had General Dual 90’s put on it. Rode in it many times. Noticed the shifting as compared to my dad’s Ford-O-Matic.
I like the roof on the 4dr hardtop in the ad, much better than the 4dr sedan.
What I remember clearly about riding in this car was watching the speedometer turn color as speed increased. Our Dynamic 88 was a 1961.
The speedometer was blue until 20 miles per hour, then green until 40, then yellow until 60, the red the rest of the way.
Also, what you were looking at was a mirror on the 1961 car – the speedometer was actually horizontally arranged away from your sight – the mirror was on a swivel, so that you could tip it up and down into your sight. So the actual speedometer was mirror opposite of how it appeared to you.
A remarkable speedometer.
Wasn’t that mirrored speedometer on the ‘61 Buick and not the Olds?
Very interesting looking car. Especiallly the back end. Wow, what artistic license the designers had back then. Far out!