(first posted 7/5/2017) A few weeks ago, J P Cavanaugh penned this great “compare and contrast” post on the 1961 Dodge Dart and the 1961 Chevrolet Impala. Now, let’s turn the clock back and take a look at the January 1961 issue of Motor Trend, which featured an in-depth comparison of these two cars, along with the Ford Galaxie. Did their conclusions back in 1961 mirror our perspective 56 years later?
First off, there was an interloper among the “Low Priced Three,” which had traditionally consisted of Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth. But with the arrival of the Dart in 1960, Dodge elbowed into the Low Priced Full-Sized Category, utilizing a reskinned Plymouth to grab sales volume.
For Sales Managers at the Dodge Division, the move was a “success” since more units were sold and overall Dodge volume was up a whopping 135% in 1960 versus 1959. The problem, of course, was that the cheapest Dodge took a whopping 75% of the total brand volume for 1960, lowering the average transaction prices at Mopar’s traditional “step-up” brand. The damage at Mopar’s traditional “value” brand was even worse: sales of the standard Plymouths (Savoy, Belvedere, Fury) plunged approximately ~40%, as buyers shifter either to the Dart (“better” brand for the same price) or the newly introduced compact Valiant. So, in the reality of 1960, the Dodge Dart became Mopar’s most successful entry into the Low Priced Full-Sized field, beating the standard Plymouths by 69,736 units (323,168 Darts to 253,432 Plymouths).
Poor Plymouth. They tried valiantly (pun intended) to fight back for 1961. At the rear of the car fins were gone, replaced with “Buck Rogers”-style tail lights.
Around front, an unusual new look was deployed. Though the design was seen as peculiar at the time, the ’61 Plymouth did ultimately prove inspirational to designers at Toyota’s upscale Lexus division…
But these Plymouth enhancements didn’t matter to Motor Trend. Given the Dart’s sales success in 1960, it was logical for Motor Trend to test the Dodge, instead of the full-size Plymouth, for their test of the 1961 versions of America’s “low-price leaders.”
Even though sales in the Compact Segment were surging, the core of the U.S. car market was still the traditional Full-Sized Segment. Buyers were presented with the very American concept of “more for the money”—roomier, more comfortable cars with starting prices that weren’t all that much higher than the cost of the compacts. Plus, the “big cars” could be had with and array of V8 engines, giving them added power and smoothness. The buyer simply had to decide the trade-off between performance and economy. To that end, Motor Trend examined Chevrolet, Dodge and Ford full-sizers equipped two different ways: with the “economy” V8s and with more potent V8s.
All the way back in 1961, Ford was migrating toward the “whipped cream” ride with corresponding “marshmallow” reflexes. Motor Trend lamented that the full-sized Ford had gone from being one of the best handling cars in its class to one that felt even sloppier than it actually was. That ominous trend would get worse, with Ford products reaching their handling and responsiveness nadir in the 1970s.
Galaxie Victoria 2-door hardtops started at $2,713 ($22,108 adjusted) plus $409 ($3,333 adjusted) for the 390 4V V8 and 3-speed Cruise-O-Matic. The Victoria 4-door hardtop started at $2,778 ($22,638 adjusted) plus an additional $306 ($2,494 adjusted) for the 292 2V V8 and 2-speed Fordomatic. With exterior dimensions reduced a bit (the 1961 full-sized models being 3.7 inches shorter and 1.6 inches narrower than their 1960 predecessors) and a fresh, straightforward design, Ford was ready for the style of the 1960s.
Despite the updates, sales of the full-sized Fords dipped 3% to 791,446 units for 1961 (a challenging sales year that saw most makes lose ground). Of the big Fords, the most popular series was the top-trim Galaxie line (sales up 21%), which accounted for 44% of the volume, followed by the base-trim Fairlane at 21% and the mid-level Fairlane 500 at 18%. Full-sized wagon models accounted for 17% of 1961 full-size Ford sales.
Without a doubt, the 800-pound gorilla in the low-priced full-sized segment continued to be Chevrolet. And for 1961, the full-size Chevy was thoroughly revamped.
In Chevrolet’s case for the Motor Trend test, the Impala 4-door hardtop was equipped with the largest non-performance V8 and the 3-speed Turboglide Automatic, while the Impala 2-door hardtop featured a more typical combination of the “step-up-from-the-six” base V8 and 2-speed Powerglide.
Like the full-sized Ford, Chevrolet also reduced the scale of its big cars for 1961, trimming length by 1.5 inches and width by 2.4 inches. Styling was modern inside and out, with sweeping lines and more restrained trim. Interior roominess was increased, with less transmission tunnel intrusion and a new deep-well trunk. Chevrolet also focused on comfort and style, with nice trim (at least at the Impala-level) and a compliant ride—though the cushiness was achieved at the expense of handling responsiveness.
The Chevy-versus-Ford battle raged at full force when it came to pricing—the Impala and Galaxie were base priced within a few dollars of each other. In Chevrolet’s case, the Impala 4-door hardtop started at $2,769 ($22,565 adjusted) plus $411 ($3,349 adjusted) for 348 4V V8 and 3-speed Turboglide Automatic. The Impala 2-door hardtop listed for $2,704 ($22,035 adjusted) plus $306 ($2,494 adjusted) for 283 2V V8 with 2-speed Powerglide.
In the challenging sales year that was 1961, the full-sized Chevrolet did see volume decline 13% to 1,193,900—but that was still 51% more than the sales totals achieved by the big Fords. The Impala series accounted for 491,000 cars (41% of the big Chevy mix), while Bel Airs sold 330,000 (28%), Biscaynes sold 204,000 (17%) and wagons sold 168,900 (14%).
Challenging was also a good adjective to describe the Dart for 1961.
On the one hand, Chrysler’s engineering expertise was well represented. Overall, the Dart did handle and brake well by the standards of the full-size category. But the “performance” D-500 383 V8 with the 3-speed TorqueFlite Automatic, as tested in the Phoenix 4-door hardtop, was felt to be “too much” for the Dart’s standard suspension tuning, and the test car was equipped with special police brakes in order to insure decent stopping ability with the big engine. But how many Darts were ordered that way? Most buyers seeking a power boost probably did not want to go to the extremes of special equipment.
The “base” 318 V8 mated to the Torqueflite Automatic, as found in the Phoenix 2-door hardtop in the test, was seen as more appropriate for the car. It was quieter and smoother than the D-500, while still offering acceptable performance for the class.
Steering response was praised—requiring only 3.5 turns lock-to-lock, it was far tighter than the loosey-goosey systems in the Chevy (5.2 turns) and the Ford (4.5 turns). Dodge was also given credit for the balance between ride comfort and handling, which was an advantage for all Mopars at the time.
But then there was the styling. While Motor Trend didn’t want to tread into a “subjective” area (and ruffle the feathers of a major advertiser), it was clear that they weren’t enamored with the design of the Dodge. After all, with the prominent fins and odd curves, the Dart screamed “Fifties” more than “Sixties.” In that fashion conscious era, when yesterday’s automotive styling was the kiss of death, the Dart trailed the clean-lined Ford and sweeping Chevrolet designs. But, hey, at least with the robust unit body construction, Dodge’s dated looks had the potential to last a long time…
Dodge charged $2796 ($22,785 adjusted) for the Dart Phoenix 2-door or 4-door hardtop. Torqueflite Automatic added $211 ($1,719 adjusted), while the high-performance 383 V8 with Ram Induction added $313 ($2,551 adjusted). So the Dodge was priced competitively for the low-price field, but that just wasn’t enough. Sales plunged for 1961, with Dart dropping 43% to 183,561 units. Perhaps the devastating dip was due to the “challenging” looks, or maybe the arrival of the Valiant-based Dodge Lancer in showrooms (with inaugural year sales of 74,776).
The model mix was nothing to brag about either. Unlike Chevrolet and Ford, where the “top” series accounted for the lion’s share of full-size sales, at Dodge the cheapest Dart, the Seneca, sold the most (87,701, 48%), followed by the mid-level Pioneer at 57,268 (31%), with the top-line Phoenix ranked at the bottom with 38,592 sold (21%). Even Plymouth, with its funky face, was able to regain the lead in low-priced full-sized cars at Chrysler Corporation: 206,757 Plymouth full-size models found homes for 1961.
One saving grace for Dodge’s bottom line, and key profit driver for Chevrolet and Ford as well, was the ample availability of options for the full-sized models. In the comparison test, Motor Trend repeatedly noted the broad array of customization options for all the cars. The base prices listed in the article were truly just that: no options were included in the prices shown. However, each of the cars sported common extras for the class, such as power steering and brakes, full wheel covers and white stripe tires. A quick look at the pricing for popular accessories demonstrates how much could easily be added—and most likely was:
| 1961 Popular Option Prices (Adjusted) | |||
| Chevrolet | Dodge | Ford | |
| Power steering | $75 ($611) | $77 ($628) | $82 ($668) |
| Power brakes | $43 ($350) | $43 ($350) | $43 ($350) |
| Tinted glass | $38 ($310) | $30 ($245) | $43 ($350) |
| Heater/defroster | $74 ($603) | $74 ($603) | $75 ($611) |
| AM radio | $62 ($505) | $59 ($481) | $59 ($481) |
| Electric clock | $16 ($130) | $16 ($130) | $15 ($122) |
| Windshield washers | $11 ($90) | $12 ($98) | $14 ($114) |
| Padded dash | $18 ($147) | $20 ($163) | $24 ($196) |
| Two-tone paint | $16 ($130) | $17 ($139) | $22 ($179) |
| Full wheel covers | $15 ($122) | $19 ($155) | $19 ($155) |
| White stripe tires | $32 ($261) | $33 ($269) | $34 ($277) |
Re-visiting the test cars and adding the above-listed niceties would have added $400 ($3,260 adjusted) to the Chevy and Dart, and $430 ($3,504 adjusted) to the Ford. Coupled with the V8 engines and automatics, these cars would have been out the dealer’s door in the $3,410 to $3,580 ($27,788 to $29,173 adjusted) range for Chevy, $3,407 to $3,720 ($27,764 to $30,314 adjusted) range for Dodge and $3,514 to $3,552 ($28,635 to $28,945 adjusted) for Ford. Some lucky dealers would have even been able to get buyers to spring for the added cost, comfort and convenience of power windows at $102 ($831 adjusted, same price for each brand) or air conditioning at $364 ($2,966 adjusted) for the Chevy, $445 ($3,626 adjusted) for the Dodge and $436 ($3,553 adjusted) for the Ford.
Proving that the more things change the more they stay the same, it is interesting to note that these 1961 cars, in the high volume sedan segment of the day, would have cost roughly the same as cars in today’s highest volume sedan segment—the ubiquitous mid-sizers. Equipped with the up-level V6 engines, the 2017 Nissan Altima 3.5 SR sells for $27,990, the 2017 Honda Accord EX V6 sells for $30,995 while the 2017 Toyota Camry XLE V6 lists for $31,370. Of course, today’s cars are loaded with safety and technology features that would have been beyond the wildest dreams of automakers in the 1960s, but like the full-size models tested by Motor Trend in 1961, they simply represent the current state-of-the-art for everyday cars. So then, as now, the primary purchase motivation would have been style and brand preference.
To that end, if I were choosing to buy a new full-sized car in 1961, my pick would have been the Impala, with the 348 4V V8 and Turboglide. To me, it offers the best blend of style, comfort, quality and performance. Which of these cars would you have brought home, back in the day?
Additional reading:
Curbside Classic/Alter-Autobiography: 1961 Ford Starliner 390-375 – Yes Pop, You Can Get A V8 Four-Speed 1961 Ford If You Really Must Have One by Paul Niedermeyer
Curbside Classic: 1961 Chevrolet Bel Air Sports Sedan – The Last Bel Air Four Door Hardtop by Paul Niedermeyer
COAL: 1961 Dodge Dart Seneca – Forward Look Family Heirloom by Guest Writer
I read this last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. A couple of things that stood out for me:
Performance:
It confirmed what a stone the Ford 292 was, with its 0-60 of 16.6 seconds.
It confirmed how lively the Chevy 283 with PG was when not saddled with a really heavy car, like the more typically heavily optioned larger cars of the mid 60s. )-60 in 12.2 seconds.
Not surprisingly, the significantly larger 60hp more powerful Dodge 318 was faster, but only by a half second or so, a very small margin. I’ve been saying for years(decades) that the very efficient PG with the efficient Chevy V8 was deceptively competitive back in the day against the larger engined competitioneven when they had 3 speed automatics.
As to Jim Cavanaugh’s perpetual complaint about the low seating in the Chevy, it was the Ford that was criticized for that. I certainly have no memory of the Chevy seating being lower than the Ford’s.
The ridiculously slow steering on the Ford and Chevy are absurd, given that it was power assisted.
Interesting to read about a Turboglide in a test. Fascinating concept, but one that just didn’t hold up.
The superlative capability of the D-500 engine and Torqueflite is of course very impressive. It’s simply ahead of the competition, and would have been very competitive ten years later. Remarkable.
As to which I’d take, it would be a Dart low-trim 2 door sedan with the D-500 and TF. Second choice: Impala coupe with four-barrel 283 and 4-speed.
Thanks for sharing this; it makes for great reading all these decades later.
I don’t disagree that the 283 was a very good performing engine. But I don’t think it stands up to the Mopar 318. The Dodge has more cubic inches, but also gets more performance out of every one of them. Adjust the Dodge engine down to 283 cubes and it would still put out about 30 horses over the Chevy. It makes its peak horsepower at 200 rpm higher, too. And don’t forget that these comparison cars put the Dodge 318 under a significant axle ratio handicap vs. the Chevy 283. The old wideblock 318 is only so overlooked because there were so much more powerful options available over most of its life.
It would certainly be interesting to swap transmissions and see what a Chevy 283/Torqueflite would do against a Mopar 318/Powerglide. No question, a 0-60 test was the Powerglide’s sandbox.
All good points on the 318 JP, but there are a few points to keep in mind. The 170-hp 283 2-bbl is the lowest rated 283 ever produced, so looking at hp/cubic inch on this variation isn’t really worthwhile. I also wouldn’t put too much weight in the gross hp figures of this era, they weren’t known to be too accurate. In fact, based purely on the performance that these cars produce, I’d bet the 283 is stronger than it’s numbers suggerst while the Dodge is somewhat weaker. There really wasn’t a massive difference in 0-60, considering the Chevrolet was handicapped with the 2-speed.
The Dodge doesn’t really have much of a axle ratio difference. 3.08 to 2.93 is pretty close, in fact only about 5% difference. This article doesn’t show tire size, or RPM/mph. Tire size makes a huge difference on the actual final drive ratio.
Your point on the 283 power rating is good, it was at a nadir at this point.
A strange trail of power ratings; from 1957 (283 introduction) the 2 bbl. carburetor version was rated at 185 horsepower. In 1960 it was lowered to 170 and then raised in 1963 to 195 where it stayed for the rest of its life (through 1967). It was a great engine through its life time, I know as I have owned more than one.
I also thought it odd that Chrysler Co. kept the power ratings of the newer LA version of the 318 at 230, same as the old wide block 318. All of this confirms my thought that SAE gross horsepower ratings that were used in this era were more of a suggestion.
283/PG powertrains stayed competitive for a long time in part because of the tests. When these were new, 0-60 was the performance measure most people looked at first. A 2 speed automatic coupled with a free rev’ing engine could compete with 3 speeds in this test. Depending on the rear axle, a 283 might make 60 still in low. Even if it shifted, a 283/PG would hold low longer than a 3 speed Ford or MoPar. Ford’s low rev’ing 292 couldn’t hold low near as long. Few magazines tested higher than 0-60 in those days, so the 3rd gear of the 3 speeds never came into play.
Very true. The Torqueflite had one upshift during a 0-60 run, which usually came at 35-40 mph. As you note, a PG might get to 60 before shifting, and if not, the shift happened when the engine was really up in its happy spot on the tach.
With the 3.08:1 axle ratio, the GM Heritage center suggests that the power glide in low gear @60 MPH would have the engine turning over at about 4500 RPM’s for the engines from the 1961 model year (which depends on tires).
The 318/Torqueflite’s “sand box” was normal interstate driving, freeway merging and 2 lane passing; areas in which the 283/PG fell on it’s face.
Just ‘cuz the 283/PG “looks good on paper” in these road tests did NOT make it the lively, “Real World” pleasurable powertrain the 318/Torqueflite was!
We (our family) had a ’62 Fury with the above mentioned 318/TorqueFlite powertrain combo. Dad loved this car, not just for it’s two lane passing performance on the “Farm To Market” roads of northeast Texas of this time period; often filled with slow farmers in their ancient pick up trucks.
Due to an inopportune, minor accident just before our usual summer vacation road trip from New Orleans to McAlester, OK we made the road trip run in a Hertz rental ’64 Bel-Air with the 283/PG powertrain.
On these often traveled, familiar 2 lane passing zones, the Chevy was an “Ice Wagon”, a “D-O-G” compared to their Fury! Either it stayed in high gear and leisurely passed traffic or kicked down to low gear, made a lot of noise, with little (if any) passing improvement.
I learned several new phrases from Dad during this road trip, as he grimly gunned the Chevy thru northeast Texas.
After one attempt at passing a slow farmer, my normally lead footed Mother pulled into an A&W burger shop, handed the keys to my Father, and refused to drive the Chevy for the rest of the road trip.
Putt-putting around small town America may have been the Chevy’s forte`; but not much else.
Buick’s dynaflows and Chevy’s power glide/turbo glide transmissions all lacked any passing gear performance.
The Power Glide should have been euthanized long before it was. There was no excuse for that relic from 1955 to be built into the 70s! Though they, strangely, used the old cast-iron Ford-O-Matic (as the FMX) to 1979, Ford had dumped their 2-speeds completely by 1966…Chrysler did long before even that.
The TurboGlide and Buick triple turbine were designed to eliminate the need for a Low Range or low gear. The TurboGlide’s torque ratio was 4.2:1 at a standstill with the engine at stall speed. However, by 30 MPH or so the first turbine is overrunning and the torque ratio has decreased to about 1.5:1. As speed increases the torque ratio falls off more, so by 50 MPH the torque ratio is probably about 1.2 or less to 1. Calling this a 3 speed transmission is not really correct, but allowed Chevy to claim something to counter the competition.
The Turboglide did have three gear ratios, even though it didn’t really operate like a 3-speed. This is likely where the confusion came from.
The TurboGlide was a continuously variable torque converter transmission. Torque converters have three basic elements, the turbine, stator and impeller. The TurboGlide divided the turbine which drives the driveshaft into three stages. The first and second stage are geared down to amplify the stall torque ratio. A basic torque converter has a stall ratio of about 2:1, with the three stage turbine the TurboGlide has about 4.2:1. But there are no shifts and the initial torque ratio fades quite fast as the car picks up speed. The first and second stage turbines only contribute torque at lower speeds and then overrun and reduce the overall performance.
With Chryslers TF transmission, the torque converter starts off as a torque converter, but quickly becomes a fluid coupling as the cars speed increases in first gear. Depending on when the transmission upshifts, the torque converter will either remain in the coupled mode, or at lower speeds may revert to some torque amplification. There definite gears though.
What I meant by my comment was that the Turboglide, like the Buick Triple turbine, had three ranges. Each range was partially created by the torque converter and the gear ratios. They were not solely based on the torque converter like the early Dynaflows. While it didn’t operate like a Simpson gearset transmission, I believe the auto press saw the fact it had three ranges (and gear ratios) and “interpreted” this to be the same as a three speed automatic.
In the case of the Turboglide, the torque converter offered a maximum converter multiplication of 1.60:1 and the three gear ratios for the Turboglide were 2.67:1, 1.60:1 and 1:1. With the torque converter and gear multiplication this gave the Turboglide a range of 4.3:1 (2.67 gear ratio x 1.60 converter ratio) to 1:1.
This is close to correct, but not exactly. A torque converter has at least three elements, but may have five or more depending on the application. (Early PowerFlite transmissions, for example, have four.) The point of adding more than one turbine is to delay coupling stage, providing more total torque multiplication. It doesn’t necessarily give you greater maximum multiplication at stall, but it sustains torque multiplication for a longer period post-stall, giving more more area under the curve.
Buick’s Twin Turbine transmissions (Twin-Turbine Dynaflow, Variable Pitch Dynaflow, and Turbine Drive), Flight-Pitch/Triple Turbine, and Turboglide used planetary gearing to improve both stall and post-stall multiplication. Although there are geared ratios, the amount of torque applied to each turbine isn’t constant and overlaps quite a bit, which is why there are no perceptible steps.
Turboglide is functionally similar to Twin-Turbine Dynaflow, but with an extra stage and with the planetary gears ONLY connected to the first- and second-stage turbines, whereas Dynaflow’s converter gears were actually in the converter hub and drove the transmission input shaft like a conventional torque converter.
@VinceC – all three turbines actually supply torque to the driveshaft so what each turbine does at stall is not obvious. There are no “ranges” like the twin turbine dynaflow, which had a low range, driver selectable, but the turbine has three stages. All three stages work at a standstill. At cruise only the third stage is working. The torque ratio is continuously variable from 4.2:1 maximum at stall, to 1:1 at cruise (actually there has to be some slippage at cruise or no torque is transmitted).
@Ate up… – I think that the TurboGlide is basically the same as Buick’s triple turbine design.
Perhaps I am not articulating myself clearly. I understand the how a Turboglide works, but I am far from an expert on these old Transmissions. My best understanding of these transmissions was to that power is concurrently applied through all three ranges/stages (I have seen both terminologies used). How much power is applied to each stage varies as the speed increases. In contrast, a traditional three speed goes through it’s three gear consequentially. Meaning all power to first, then all power to second, and all power to third.
To simplified the operation greatly, this is how I always understood a Turboglide to work. At low speeds, the the torque converter applies most power to the turbine for the 1st stage, which is also multiplied by the 2.67:1 gear ratio, while the 2nd and 3rd range have minimal power applied. As speed increases, more power goes to the 2nd range turbine (which is multiplied by 1.6 gear ratio) and the first one slowly dies off. The same repeats going from the second to third, which is a direct drive. Hence, no shifting, just a smooth transition in power as the transmission goes through its stages. Using the torque converter stall and the gear ratios, it seamless transitions through the three stages, operating kind of like a hydraulic CVT.
I have an old GM service training document that basically used a bicycle as an analogy. A traditional three speed transmission would just be a three speed bike that that requires shifting to go through the 3 gears. A Turboglide would be alike a three person bike, each with a different sprocket (large, medium and small). Everyone pedals together, but at low speed the small sprocket does most of the work, as speed gains more work moves to the middle. As speed builds more, the majority of the work moves to the larger one as the smaller ones free wheel. In essence, it allows the bike to go through the three ranges without a single “rough” shift.
I will post part of the diagram which I think explains the operation very simply.
Next page
Last one
This SAE Journal paper may help you understand better
http://papers.sae.org/590050/
The first few pages can be previewed by clicking on the right side of the page where it says preview tech paper
Basically the first and second stage turbines only contribute if you are accelerating. Once you reach a low cruising speed or more, then all the work is done by the third stage and the first and second stages overrun at the same speed as the impeller or less.
there is an SAE article on the TurboGlide too, but not as informative .
I read it over, nothing new there, and my explanation still makes sense to me. My basic explanation was for a vehicle accelerating up to speed (I should have said that).
I think the basic design of the triple turbine could have been made more efficient if the first and second stage turbines had been designed to upshift. For that to work, the first stage turbine would be connected to its planetary gear but instead of the output going to the driveshaft, it would go to the second stage turbine shaft, which is connected to its planetary gear. Both planetary gears could have been the same with a 1.6:1 ratio. Then the first stage would be geared down relative to the driveshaft (or third stage) 2.56:1.
Then as you accelerate, the first stage could upshift when it reaches the point of overrunning, making the triple turbine a twin turbine. At cruise the second stage would upshift to make a single stage turbine. This would have improved the overall performance I think, but Buick would not have liked the shifts.
I still would not call it a three speed transmission though. I think a three speed transmission should have a passing gear of about 1.5:1 which can be used up to 70 to 80 MPH.
VinceC has the right idea about how these transmissions work, which is admittedly exceedingly complicated.
SomeOneInTheWildWest: Yes, Turboglide and the Buick three-turbine automatics are based on the same design, although I don’t think they have any common parts and the planetary gearing is different. Buick also had a continuously variable stator, whereas Turboglide has a two-position variable stator.
The planetary gears DO shift, insofar as there’s a specific point where each of the two planetary gearsets idles and ceases to multiply torque. It’s not perceptible because each “shift” is accomplished by an overrunning clutch and because it produces no jump in the relationship of engine to road speed. I’m not sure how what you’re describing is different than how it actually works except that the ratios of the two planetary sets aren’t the same. The planet carriers of both gearsets are linked together and both are linked to the third turbine and the output shaft.
In drive the planetary gears do not idle. What happens is that as the third stage turbine’s speed increases, say to 1500 RPms, the first stage turbine has to spin at 3500 RPMs to keep up, but if the impeller is turning at say 3200 RPMs, the first stage turbine is not pushing on the planetary gear, but the one way overrunning clutch allows it to idle (the turbine idles, not the gears),
Nope, in Drive, the planetary gears idle once certain speed thresholds are crossed. To provide gear reduction, the rear ring gear (dark green) and front sun gear (purple) are connected to overrunning clutches (fuchsia with the little triangles). In Drive, with the forward clutch engaged, the reaction members can’t turn backward and is effectively held stationary.
The planet carriers of both gearsets are mechanically linked together and the neutral clutch links them both to the third turbine (the darker blue). If the second or third turbine drives the carriers faster than the first turbine can, they will overdrive the rear ring gear, unlocking the rearmost overrunning clutch. When the third turbine drives the carriers faster than the second turbine can, it overdrives the front sun gear, unlocking the second overrunning clutch.
When each overrunning clutch releases, that gearset no longer has a reaction member and can’t multiply torque. However, because the carriers are still mechanically connected to each other, the output shaft continues to turn at carrier speed while the planetary gears idle.
(Diagram © 2016–2017 Aaron Severson)
Well I don’t really understand how the mechanical parts are put together. What I said is that the first and second stage turbines stop pushing on their respective planetary gears and as a result the over running clutch does not push the turbine faster.
From a standstill all three turbines are stationary. Starting up the impeller spins up to at most stall speed, but faster than the third stage. For the TurboGlide the first stage can turn up to 2.67 times faster than the third stage, while the second stage can turn 1.6 time faster. All three are simultaneously connected to the driveshaft, but stage 1 and 2 are connected through a planetary gear and are in a lower gear ratio than the third stage.
As long as the impeller is turning about 2.8 times faster than the third stage, all three should be active in pushing on the drive shaft. If the third stage is at 1000 RPMs (roughly 25 MPH), the first stage has to run 2670 RPMs, and the engine (impeller) 2700 or more, all of which is doable. With the third stage at 2000 RPMs (50 MPH) the engine would have to run over 5000 RPM, which I think is not possible while engaged with the torque converter. So the first stage is now what I will say is floating and its over running clutch has disengaged it, however that works. The second stage, turning at 3200 RPMs may be contributing some torque if the engine is running faster, as it may well be.
The link that I provided to the Buick triple turbine show all of this in detailed graphics. For Buick the triple turbine was the ultimate transmission as the driver only had one range for Drive (no low range to start off in). Then Buick got a new manager who dropped this expensive transmission and agreed that the turbohydramatic under development about then was the way to go.
This might be of some interest to some of you. About half way in there is a chart of torque ratio for the TurboGlide vs speed (MPH).
http://chevy.oldcarmanualproject.com/trans/60tg/index.htm
Wow, what a weird transmission (Turboglide). I was not even aware of its existence, thought all automatic Chevrolets used Powerglide by this point.
The 283 with the four barrel/dual exhaust option (I think 220HP) would have been a nice upgrade for someone looking for small V8 economy with good passing/merging performance. Probably even better with the 3 speed manual transmission.
Was the 348 available with the Powerglide that year? If not a 3 speed would have perked it up a lot.
Yes, especially teamed up with the available 4-speed T10.
Yes, PG was available with the 348, and the better choice, both for reliability as well as performance, as the TG seemed to suck a lot of power whereas the PG was exceptionally efficient.
Another classic Mopar styling cycle being two years behind GM trends. These were the answer to GM’s space age, anything goes, oh hell – we don’t know where to go, 1959 cars.
The closest Ford ever got to the craziness of the turn of the decade was the 1960 Mercury – earth calling Sputnik…..
Actually, I really like the 1960 Mercury. Its styling is far cleaner than the overdone ’57-’59 models, yet it’s still quite imposing and distinctive as opposed to the cheapened and downsized sort-of-a-Ford ’61 models. Plus you can still get a four-door hardtop wagon (though the slow-selling two-door hardtop wagon was gone for 1960).
The ’59 GMs were themselves a reaction to the ’57 MoPars making the ’60 FoMoCo styling was a double delayed reaction. If Dodge was chasing the 59 GMs they were really only chasing themselves!
Yes, and no. Chrysler hit if out of the park in ’57, and the Chrysler New Yorker of that year may be the cleanest and prettiest expression of the look.
GM couldn’t, and didn’t just duplicate the ’57 Mopars, they attempted to find design leadership. Only Cadillac went with the tall fin look – an attempt to steal back the fins they’d owned since 1948. The rest of the cars were a lot of wild and very busy details that were not always cohesive, and not really fodder for a long term design theme – which sounds a lot like Mopar ’61 to me.
If GM could not exactly see the future with its ’59 cars, Mopar seemed at a total loss of what to do after the fabulous success of 1957. Their 1958 – 1959 cars were mostly stagnate, if busier versions of the 1957s. In the meantime, Mopar seemed to have found the even crazier notions GM had for 1959 in GM’s trash, and started its own design themes around those.
Bill Mitchell brought GM back from the brink in 1961, while Virgil Exner’s famous Exnuberance for the ’60s spilled out in 1961 showrooms, leading to his demise at Chrysler.
In fairness to Exner, he had no hand in these ’61 cars, which were designed in his absence while recuperating from a heart attack. Bill Schmidt was running things in Chrysler styling at the time, and he wasn’t happy with these either. Some argue that Cliff Voss was responsible, but he denied it. In auto design as in all things, failure is an orphan.
Another 1960 Mercury fan here. An almost complete restyle from 1959, but it did no good. Those big canted taillights are just the coolest!
Interesting article, thanks!
I guess this once I’ll be the GM fan, I’ll take a Sport Coupe with 283/4 Speed
Looks like you can get a kit to upgrade to a modern Delphi 600 steering box, so I’ll take one of those as well. And some 15″ Torq Thrust wheels with 70 series tires.
Thanks for asking, do you need a shipping address?
Fabulous lunchtime reading! And I feel so . . . vindicated. 🙂
I agree with PN wholeheartedly about the relative merits of the Chevy 283 vs. the Ford 292. If anything could mask the shortcomings of the old 2 speed Powerglide, the free-breathing/high-revving 283 was it. In fact, when compared with the big 348 and Turboglide, the 283/PG acquitted itself well. I will not harp on my “perpetual” complaint on the seating position, and maybe that was a condition that only got really noticeable after a few years.
The other thought was how late Chevy was to the party with a big-inch engine. And I can only imagine how much more appealing that 348 might have been with a decent transmission. Poor GM was really in an automatic transmission-wilderness in the early 1960s.
I would have been torn between the Ford and the Dart. The Ford was attractive and the 4 bbl 390 was a sweetheart of an engine. But the Dart out rode it, out handled it and out performed it. Make mine a Phoenix wagon with the D-500/TF. At least when in the drivers seat I wouldn’t have to look at it. 🙂
I remember that sometime between ’58 and 63 dad had one Impala with the 348/Turboglide combination and it was the one company car he had that he was very unhappy with. Once it went away, back with the small-block/Powerglide combination which was all he’d buy until the Turbo Hydra-Matic arrived (’70 Camaro RS is my memory is still good).
You would probably know as well as anyone – the 348 does not seem to be one of the more beloved Chevy engines. Everyone loves the 283, the 327 and the 409, but the 348 seems to be more of a footnote in the way the 352 is with Ford people. Was it because it was seen so often with the terrible Turboglide? Or was it just kind of a slug in the world of Chevy V8s?
I have done some reading on the Turboglide, and it was really a fascinating concept that did its work through three separate torque converter elements rather than through actual gears. It was only out for something like 4 or 5 years and developed a terrible reputation for a short service life.
I suspect it was quickly overshadowed by the rev-happy 283, and its big brother, the rip-roaring 409.
Back in the day, I remember the 348 referred to as a “truck engine.” I was a little kid, so I didn’t know why, but I did know it wasn’t good.
The 348 was originally intended to be used for Chevrolet trucks, but was brought into passenger car lines as well for 1958. This is where the truck engine claim came from. FWIW, the 348 in this particular test is no a high performance variation. Motor Life tested a 350 hp 348 with 3-2bbl carbs and it ran the 1/4 mile in 15.8 secs at 91 mph. And the “409” you hear in the Beach Boys song, is actually a 348.
I guess “She’s real fine, my 348” doesn’t sing as well….
“Never be late in my 348” is sort of catchy, though.
It seems odd to me that Chevy would even try the experiment of the Turboglide. Wasn’t Buick’s experiment with Dynaflow transmissions with extra torque converters also a reliability disaster?
Both the Buick triple turbine and the TurboGlide has early problems with the clutches, which were a different design than was used in the power glide or twin turbine dynaflow. The problem was fixed for the 1959 model year, but both transmissions had earned a reputation for failing.
Buick’s twin-turbine transmissions generally worked pretty well, although the same can’t be said for the triple-turbine units. Chevrolet actually adopted their version BEFORE Buick did — Chevrolet first offered Turboglide in 1957, whereas Buick’s Flight Pitch Dynaflow didn’t arrive until 1958. It wasn’t a Buick concept, it came from the corporate staff.
It seems like all the mid 300 ci big block engines were looked at as dogs back in the day. The 352 for Ford, the 348 for Chevrolet and the 361 for Mopars just didn’t have the “magic” of the more popular classic engines both big and small block. All three were top of the line at one time, but for a very short time and all ended up powering trucks for years after their automotive life was done. A good running small block could beat them and if you are going to have a big block why not the largest. All three were never particularly economical at the gas pump either, even with 2 bbl and low compression. A friend of mine had a ’64 Malibu with a 327\350 or 365 hp that would eat any of these engines and still get 20-21 mpg on the highway.
you are comparing a mid size to a full size car
Malibus weigh 500#s less
I guarantee that Malibu is not pulling down 21 mpg using a powerglide. A 4 speed with a 2.93 rear end and a constant 60mph with tallish tires maybe…
My 65 Cutlass with the 4bbl 330 and Jetaway 2spd transmission got 15 mpg on the freeway and 11ish in the city.
My current 68 Electra 430 4 bbl with carb and ignition tweaks gets 9-10 mpg in the city and as good as 17mpg on the freeway with the stock 2.78 rear end and 28″ tires driving at real world California freeway speeds.
Classic car world stories are just like fishing stories………
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the ’64 Malibu had a 4pd with the original rear end that the car came with. It was a 283 with PG from the factory. It did get the mileage I posted on the highway provided you kept your foot out of the throttle. The poor car went through 5 different engines and 3 different transmissions due the fact that the street racer owner was hard on his car. I towed the car 5 or 6 times with a tow bar behind my ’63 Rambler Classic.
I also realize that the mid size Malibu has a weight advantage over a full size car but the ’61 Chevrolet with a 327\350 or 365 hp would be at least a couple of hundred pounds lighter than one with a 348 and would be able outrun the same car equipped with a 348. I just threw in the ’64 Malibu reference to show that high performance engines do not always mean lousy gas mileage
If it has to be one of these it’ll be the Dart (Phoenix 4-door with 318/4bbl and Torqueflite) but I’d much rather have a much more attractive ’60 model; in ’61 I’d sooner pick up a Lancer with the aluminum 225 (but then I would say that) and maybe a Hyper-Pak kit from the dealer’s parts counter.
No question as to which one I’d buy if spending my own money. A cross ram MoPar 383 more than makes up for all that ugliness. Trouble is, if I were in my current sales job driving a company car, I’d probably have gotten stuck with a Biscayne 6/PG.
I remember them as a popular family car in the small Wisconsin farm town where I grew up. To the universal dismay of community teenage sons, few farmers in our area seemed to feel any need to spring for the slight extra cost of a V8 no matter what make they bought.
If the 292 Ford was a stone, 6 cylinder Chevys and Fords were absolute rocks. On the high school social ladder of the time, only being seen behind the wheel of any model Rambler conferred lower status on the driver.
If you look at Consumer Reports from the era, one of their stock phrases is “you will get faster heat with a Six”. I can see that being a priority in Wisconsin.
I had to laugh at the Rambler reference…despite its Nash ancestry, the reclining seats made late 1950s and early ’60s Ramblers a favorite of school kids at western New England drive-in theaters (where I grew up) – and, when there was a 250 or 327 engine (NO, not a Chevy engine! – AMC’s was an undersquare Nash design that hit the market six years before Chevy bored their 283) under the dowdy hood, that stodgy ol’ Rambler would be a nasty surprise at the stop lights.
To answer the question, I can see myself being stodgy enough in 1961 to go Ford, but the ’61 Impala is just such a beauty to me now that I’d definitely pick it today.
There was still some weirdness in GM’s other 1961 big cars, particularly Oldsmobile. Chevy produced a very handsome car that to me comes across as perhaps one of the sportiest full-size cars ever built compared to its same year competition. The car looks light and almost mid-size compared to the Ford, and seems like it could even be a sibling of the Corvair, which it indeed was.
The Dodge? Well, lets just say the ’60 Dart was fairly good looking.
A Seneca with the Slant Six please.
OT: JPCavanaugh: I was watching an early Alfred Hitchcock episode called “I Killed The Count” and the teleplay was written by James P Cavanaugh. I had to run it back and check to see if I had read it correctly. Any relation ? There must be writer’s blood in the Cavanaugh veins !
Haha, have not seen that one. Not related to my knowledge, but with those huge east coast Irish populations of 100-150 years ago, who knows. 🙂
LOL. Thanks, JP. It was a real CC moment for sure.
Me I would’ve bought the 1961 Ford Galaxie Starline coupe with the 390 4bbl V8, I’ve always liked the early 60’s Ford’s the best of the three.
Chevy Impala sports coupe all the way.
As long as it was a hardtop, gimme the 235 Powerglide if nothing else! I’ll gladly take it over all others. Style, style, style, baby. Everything else looks like a slug.
Which? Lessee….my Aunt had a 61 Chevy wagon. Her last car with a stick until she got a Colt for knocking around town in 82. (She had wanted to buy another Plymouth, but couldn’t stand the styling). I remember thinking the interior was quite nice. Seems I noticed the hub of the steering wheel said Bel Air while the badge on the outside said Parkwood. Never noticed a lack of headroom, but then the Chevy yielded to a 65 Fury III wagon and at 12, I was a bit short of being full grown.
My dad had a 64 Galaxie XL. His first car with an automatic. Exceptionally nice car, inside and out. In that one, I did notice the very low seating position, yet my dad at 5’8″, had very little headroom.
The Dodge? No (styling) way (styling) in this life or the next (did I mention the styling?)
I’ll go with……a 61 Rambler Classic with the 250.
I’ll never understand auto reviews that show a picture of the dash board with the steering wheel upside down. Seriously?
JPC makes a point, if you take styling out of the equation then it would have to be the Dodge. HOWEVER, if I’m making payments over several years, I’m going to have to buy a car I at least like to look at. To that end, I’d go with the Ford. The Chevy is good looking, but it borders on overdecorated IMHO.
I’ve driven several 60s Fords, but only ever ridden in a 61, a Country Squire that I felt looked better than my parents’ 64 Country Squire.
I particularly liked his concluding remark…”…once inside, at least I don’t have to LOOK at it!” or such to that effect.
More Dr Pepper in the keyboard, on that one ~
Hmm…a rip-roaring cross-ram 383…in a 4-door hardtop? I wonder how many red-light contests the MT crew won with THAT car?
For me…honestly, in 1961, gimme a Valiant.
Of these three…Dart Seneca (wagon if possible) with a Pursuit Special 383, 3-speed, police brakes and suspension, fast-ratio manual steering, and dealer-installed air conditioning.
I’ve always though that styling-wise Chrysler (or in this case, Dodge) parallels Nissan with their outlandish, artistic designs, Toyota parallels GM (or Chevy) with their restrained but attractive body styling and Honda parallels Ford with their clean-lined, reserved styling. Looking at these three American cars and looking at their modern counterparts seems to show that point better than ever, even in sales.
Did you just call a 61 Impala RESTRAINED?
It’s not reserved by any means but when you compare to the competition of the time, or mostly Chrysler, it seems pretty restrained.
I don’t see it. About the only thing less restrained than the Impala might be a 59 Cadillac
Compared to the batwings that preceded it too. The 61 was such a well thought out design, every detail plays off the next, even if it is just trim, and doesn’t over power it. Ford at first glance comes off as the most restrained of this trio, but one of the aspects I sometimes find offputting about Ford design during this period was that they would straight up copy paste elements of other models in the lineups and haphazardly graft them onto a much more conservative overall design to sell the prestige of having them, like the Thunderbird style hardtop roofline or even the “Thunderbird V8” under the hood. Chevy would certainly use familial elements but it took restraint to not let the details overpower the overall design.
I always wanted to like these Fords but I never could for some reason, now I know why. The design isn’t just reserved, it’s just lame. It’s kind of crude in a way, like something Russia would build for the KGB.
One thing that’s funny about the ’60-’61 Fords is the C-Pillar isn’t really a true “Thunderbird” design – there’s too much tapering between the front and rear angles, and the corners are heavily radiused. They fixed that for ’62/’63.
Good point, I suspect they simply modified the existing sedan roofline using a flat rear window and extended the C pillars slightly to fatten them up. the quarter window shape between the base Fairlane and Galaxie appears identical.
Not me, I’d rather commit Hara-Kiri than drive a ’61 Dodge, the Plymouth however, was an aerodynamic angel! I’ve a Sport Fury convertible with the 383 and Torqueflite, but to lessen “pushover”, added Nissan disc brakes all around, and is a rare gem along with my ’66 Citroen ID19 wagon and Infiniti Q 45 sedan, all three in Honey Gold metallic. I think that Mopar made a mistake (and I’m a Mopar fanatic!) when they kept Plymouth out of the value leader standings, but made up for it with the Valiant and the ’62-’64’s. I smiled when Plymouth outdid Dodge that year.
I’ll take a ’61 Starliner, thankyouverymuch 🙂 .
I’d take the 283/PG Impala in a heartbeat. Other than the slow steering, there are no real downsides. If I could upgrade to the 4bbl 230hp 283, even better. That bubble top 2dr hardtop is a styling knockout, especially with the rest of the ’61 Impala body.
Practical side, the Dodge looks better engineering wise, come resale time, which one will pay back the best?
As much of an uggo as the Dodge is, the cops lapped ’em up for a reason. And the Plymouth’s rocketship styling appeals to me so that’s what it’ll be – a 318/Torqueflite Fury with the police brakes. Of the modern “equivalents” I’ll go for an Accord Sport 5-speed but I’m more of a small-car guy.
Excellent read! I’d take the Chevy with the 348. Reading this made me a little misty-eyed as it brought back my first memories of my father going through the process of purchasing a new car. I remember him bringing a white with blue trim and interior ’61 Impala home for mom’s inspection (and a 9 year old me checking it out), but he ended up buying the Nomad wagon version, with the rear facing jump seat in the back, as I had a brother and two sisters… 283 with the powerglide. My parents purchased a new home in ’62, and with money tight, I remember the wagon running terribly, but the much-needed tune-up had to be deferred. Funny, the things one recalls.
In late ’64, dad traded the car in on a 1963 Cadillac Sedan deVille… that horrendous old rose color. But it was a cool car (I just about washed the paint off as a 15year old to get access to doing burnouts in the driveway) that he hung on to until he bought a new 1970 Olds 98… a car that dumped all its transmission fluid on the garage floor the night he brought it home.
Great read as always GN! It’s interesting that the steering is mentioned, but in typical MT fashion they lack any real detail. Lock to lock is not a useful measurement for steering, unless comparing two identical cars (ie a fast ratio vs standard ration on the same car). When comparing different makes it doesn’t take into account that the sweep of the steering box may not be the same between different makes. Note the difference in the turning diameters between the cars.
Steering ratio is a far more effective measure. However, these cars are all recirculating ball steering systems with parallelogram type linkages. That means, you can’t just look at the steering box ratio, but the linkage will also factor in. The Chevy has a 20:1 steering box ratio, but the overall ratio is actually 24:1. This overall ratio could be compared to a modern car’s steering rack ratio. The Dodge, which had the quickest steering, actually has a 19.1:1 overall steering ratio. Comparing the overall ratios we can see the difference is not as drastic as the lock to lock comparison. And it shows that by modern standards, even the Dodge had pretty slow steering.
Also interesting to note that while MT mentions the good handling of the Dodge, it also says that it believes the 383 overpowers the chassis. It seems to recommend chassis upgrades to handle the power of the 383.
I forgot to mention the Ford steering ratio. I couldn’t find the 1961 overall ratio, but I did find the 1963. It seems to have been different from the 61, having 3.9 turns lock to lock, and it has an overall ratio of 23:1.
I guess that article of Motor Trend inspired some folks to do this vintage Chrysler dealer promo film strip showing the 1971 models, they compared the Impala and Galaxie with the Polara Custom instead of the Fury.
Cool video! Two things jump out at me:
1) As the 1970s unfolded, Chrysler pretty much gave up on even half-hearted differentiation between Dodge and Plymouth, and within a few years both brands would be interchangeable “low price leaders.” Dodge or Plymouth no longer mattered as they pitched against Ford and Chevy.
2) In a case of déjà vu from 1961, the 1971 Dodge also looks like a throwback to another decade. With its loop bumpers and broad expanses of relatively unadorned sheetmetal the Dodge screams “late Sixties” just when Ford and Chevrolet were deploying more formal styling with pronounced “neo-classical” looks that would become the style of the Seventies.
Part of Chrysler’s problem was that it lacked a real prestige leader that could serve as an inspiration for the lower priced offerings. No matter how much people like it today, the Imperial was simply an also-ran as a luxury car by the late 1960s.
Chevrolet, on the other hand, had long sold itself as a “baby Cadillac,” while Ford could use Lincoln Continental styling cues on its full-size cars to make them seem more luxurious and upscale.
It didn’t helped then Imperial even as a separate division was still referred as “Chrysler Imperial”.
And it was Mercury who used more the Continental styling cues or instead used a marketing trick as “Mercury…now in the Lincoln Continental tradition” as shown in this ad https://www.flickr.com/photos/29069717@N02/30160646955 to get its full-size line-up back in the medium-price field against Pontiac, Olds and Buick until the next marketing move “the sign of the cat” when the Cougar was introduced and having a cougar roaring on the top of the Mercury-Lincoln sign in tv ads.
Ford managed to move the “in the _________ tradition.” theme down-market: Introducing the Torino Elite as being “In the Thunderbird tradition.”. Of course a couple years later a remodeled Torino would be the Thunderbird.
Ford seemed to have been trying to kill Mercury about as long as Chrysler has been trying to kill Plymouth. :/
Thank you for posting this. I’d take a Ford Galaxie, but in the Starliner body style and with the bigger V-8. The article mentions Ford’s efforts to improve the quality of its full-size cars. After the rushed 1960 models, Ford really did try to improve both the quality of materials and level of assembly of its cars.
What really sticks out to me, though, is how Chrysler’s decision to allow Dodge in the low-price field ended up hurting both Plymouth and Dodge. Plymouth was seriously wounded by the full-size Dart, while Dodge’s image as a step up from a Plymouth was effectively gone by the mid-1960s. By 1962, Pontiac was making hay as a sportier and more prestigious – but still reasonably priced – alternative to a Chevrolet. Chrysler really had nothing to counter Pontiac’s success.
What one really wants, however, is a car with the cleaner styling of the Chevrolet or Ford, but with the Mopar virtues of a great drivetrain and tauter suspension. Which is what Plymouth was offering by 1963, and Dodge by 1964.
Also, the launching of the Valiant as a separate division didn’t helped things either. They wanted the Valiant to not look like a “junior companion” but after the launching of the “senior compacts” like the Comet at Ford and the BOP Tempest/F-85/Special (who’ll morphed later in mid-size intermediate LeMans/Cutlass/Skylark-Century) pushed Dodge to get a rebadge as the Lancer and the Valiant being a Plymouth in the US while in Canada, Valiant stayed separate a big longer. As if wasn’t enough, it was during that time then AMC with the Rambler line-up kicked Plymouth out of its 3rd rank in 1960 or 1961.
We could wonder what if Exner and the rest of Chrysler staff had decided to let the Valiant as a Plymouth right from the beginning instead of a separate division and give Dodge a variant with more differences in the design?
Dodge and Plymouth became interchangeable and common folks would call any Mopar a “Dodge”.
Example is Al Bundy’s car in “Married with Children” was called a “Dodge Duster”. If the show writers were corrected on this, they’d probably say “who cares?”.
Looks like Argentina was ahead of the others, when they used the GTX (who was used by Plymouth) monicker for Dodge.
The dealer network and brand identity cannot be overlooked. Dodge was a better equivalent to Ford and Chevrolet, mostly stand alone dealerships that also sold trucks under the same name. Plymouth shared a showroom with Chrysler and Imperial, but no trucks.
I dont even remember where the dying Desoto brand was sold. Was Desoto slotted in Pontiac/Olds/Mercury price territory? This had to be giving Dodge no room to go upmarket, just below Chrysler.
DeSoto was, in theory, right in the middle, supposedly competitive with Oldsmobile. Most DeSoto dealers were actually DeSoto-Plymouth dealers, from when Chrysler launched Plymouth by dualing it in each of the other Divisional dealer networks. This gave Plymouth a huge head start via an instant dealer network, but later hampered Plymouth by always having a more expensive and nicer car in the same showroom for the buyer with just a little more money. The company messed with dealership franchises around 1960-61 by taking Plymouth away from the other lines, but they ended up dualing Plymouth with Chrysler.
By the time DeSoto was killed, Chrysler management was a hot mess. Chrysler encroached downward with the 61 Newport while Dodge moved both upward with the Polara (and downward into Plymouth territory with the Dart). The Newport pretty much sucked all of the air out of the middle price slot among Mopar brands because the 61 DeSoto didn’t make a full year and the 61 Dodge Polara’s sales were under 15K units. In truth, Chrysler had never really differentiated its brands as well as it should have. Also the middle priced market sort of died between 1958-61 and didn’t really start to recover until maybe 1963.
The Dart was a consolation prize for former Dodge-Plymouth dealers who would be losing Plymouth in 1960 as the Corporation standardized on Dodge and Chrysler-Plymouth, with a few Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge Truck dealers in rural areas and DeSoto going away after early 1961.
I wonder if they considered making DeSoto a “premium compact/midsize only” division alongside the Chrysler brand’s “no jr. editions” policy, just as Comet was planned for Edsel, as *the* Edsel after 1960 before Fomoco decided to give it a fresh start.
Nobody at Chrysler board of directors had thought this but someone on Motor Trend had imagined this possibility. A poster nicknamed 57burb scanned some renderings of a “DeSoto Valiant” variant published in the June 1960 issue of Motor Trend. http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29648&start=51
Had Chrysler gone with a DeSoto as “premium compact/mid-size” division, I wonder if DeSoto would had got more B-body variants and having the Cordoba badged as DeSoto as well as a E-body variant? 😉
57burb also posted this variant of a “DeSoto Valiant” wagon taken from the same Motor Trend issue.
Correct. My father was a Dodge-Plymouth dealer. Plymouth was taken away from the Dodge dealers and only Chrysler dealers were allowed to sell Plymouths after 1959. The new ’60 Dart was a replacement to placate Dodge dealers for the loss of Plymouth. DeSoto dealers were also scheduled to continue to sell Plymouth, but the plug was pulled on DeSoto.
There had been a huge problem with Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler dealers all selling Plymouths. Most towns of any size had one Ford and Mercury, one Chevy, one Pontiac, one Buick, one Lincoln, one Oldsmobile, one Cadillac, one Dodge, one DeSoto and one Chrysler, but three Plymouth dealers. As a result, the price competition between the 3 Plymouth dealers (Dodge-Plymouth, DeSoto-Plymouth and Chrysler-Plymouth) was really brutal. After 1960 there was only one dealer in most towns selling Plymouth, and Dodge dealers still had the traditional Dodge line and a cheaper Dart line to sell.
I’m torn after reading this!
If you’d asked me when I was a kid, it would’ve been the ’61 Impala all the way, even though my Dad (also an Impala fan) had a ’60 Dodge Dart Seneca at the time. The Impala is still my favorite by style, however. That teal colored one featured here a few weeks ago was just beautiful.
Obviously I have a Ford bias considering my handle here. I like the Galaxie, but liked the later years of those much better, like Jason Shafer’s.
But after reading the praise for the performance of the Dodge, well, that appeals to the driver in me.
Hey…another Phord guy has seen the light! 😀
Hey.
Come on.
Knock it off.
PLEASE STOP THROWING MUSTANG PARTS AT ME! =)
If limited to these choices it’d have to be a Galaxie 500 4DR hardtop, with a 390 and 4spd combo. They were available in the 4DRs, one just had to know how to navigate the order forms at the dealer and be willing to wait a couple of months.
Thank the Lord for Dodge and Plymouth in 1961. They made the Rambler Ambassador front end for ’61 look positively mainstream. Given my druthers, I’d have gotten a ’61 Amby 4DR with the 327 V8 and TwinStick manual on the floor. Who needed to go to Europe, for a EuroSedan?
The four speed was only available on the Starliner with the 375hp 390, as it was just for the racers. And only 100 of them came with the four speed, which was actually delivered in the trunk and had to be dealer-installed. Seriously. Full story here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1961-ford-starliner/
I’m really curious about why MT titled this test “Ford vs. Chevrolet vs. Dart”. Why weren’t they consistent by using the marque names (Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge) or model names (Galaxie vs. Impala vs. Dart)? Or was the Dart not perceived as a “real” Dodge?
They got it right. The full size cars by Ford were called “Ford”; by Chevy it was the “Chevrolet”; and by Dodge, it was the “Dart”. These are families of cars, with various model/trim levels in each. The Dodge Polara was really another family of cars, a step up from the Dart, which was the family that competed with the Ford and Chevrolet. The Dart family had its own three trim lines (Phoenix, Seneca and Pioneer), and the name. There was also the Dodge Lancer.
This was a great piece of work. Thank you very much for replicating this article. I like 1961 cars very much. If I had to choose one, it would be very difficult for me. I actually don’t favor any of these three. In 1961, I would have wanted a Mercury, an Oldsmobile, or on the other extreme – a Rambler. The Mercury and Oldsmobile satisfy my Space Age longings, and the Rambler, with a/c, would be my slow go-to daily driver. Yet – there are so many other great vehicles in 1961. HELLO Lincoln Continental! It was a very cool year.
Oh I’d a wanted a “Corvair”!! Or one of those “Tempest/F85/ Specials” . Would a been tough to choose.
The 1961 Dart and Plymouth appear to have styled by a French pastry chef. Their styling is in a word grotesque.
Many were asking the “baker”; “What was it supposed to look like”? lol
Great article and write-up! Glad to see it come around again.
I hadn’t noticed that GM had newly come up with the gas tank placement, spare tire shelf and deep well trunk that a lot of us associate with Ford.
Ironically, Ford duplicated this architecture in 1965, the same year GM abandoned it! It lived on at Ford through the end of the Panthers in 2011.
I was surprised at that Chevy trunk photo too. As long as I remember GM had wide, long, but shallow trunks (with the gas tank underneath) and Ford pushed the gas tank to the rear allowing for a much deeper trunk, though nowhere near as long for and aft. GM used the shallow but long design for the ’59/60 full-sizers; I wasn’t aware they went with the Ford-stylel deep-well design from ’61-64.
My brother once remarked that the “mirror on the dash” had the advantage of not distracting the driver with traffic behind..lol They’d never see much/most of it.
I mentioned, “horns were loud then”, not a lot of “a/c” so windows were open a lot.
My Dad traded his ’56 Plymouth Plaza (no options, flathead 6 and manual) for a new ’61 Rambler Classic Wagon, automatic, 6, probably AM radio in Compton CA. It was the first of two Rambler Classic Wagons he was to buy (the 2nd in 1963). We only lived in Ca from 1959 to 1961 (originally from the East Coast) after which we relocated to Pittsburgh (imagine moving from Southern California to Pittsburgh in 1961, my Dad wasn’t one to follow trends, back in his younger years we moved a lot as he worked for several different companies, but always on semiconductors, which he started right after getting his chemistry degree in 1956.
Though I might also be tempted to go with the Rambler in ’61, I also like the Dart. I would go with the 318 and Torqueflite, don’t have any experience with the Powerflite, but I recall that it shared engine oiling with the transmission, which seems pretty odd these days but I guess was done on some cars back then. Guess it would be nice just to have to keep track of one fluid it would also seem odd to me to have combustion byproducts also circulating in the transmission as well as the crankcase.