I bought a LOT of cars over the years, most everything built through all the 50's. The 57-58 Olds (I had "98" convertibles from both years, and a 57 Super 88 coupe, all equipped with 'J-2' tri power, the converts were full power equipped, the 58 had air suspension) Both 98's , with HD shocks would dig up asphalt on corners or sharp dips with the rear bumper , and bottomed the front bumper often enough it fell off on the way to San Fransisco. They could all keep up with the 2 bbl Windsor, all the rest of the cars in this test could beat the Old's. When the 394 came out in '59 Olds got faster. The fastest Buick in 57-58 was the Century, (I had 7 57 Buicks in all series, and 14 58 Buicks in all series including convertibles.) The Century's could take Windsor and Saratogas, match the Imperial, and just loose to the New Yorker. The way to do it was in LOW gear from 0-60, which was very quick at 0-60 in 7.8-7.9 seconds, in DRIVE is was 9 seconds. I did have rear shocks tear out of their mounts on several of my 57- 58 Buicks driving fast on bumpy roads. I had a dozen 57 Cadillacs and another dozen 58's including two convertibles from each year. Any V8 Chrysler product could out-do a 57-58 Cadillac in all performance categorizes. However, I loved the way these looked, my favorite being an extended deck Sedan DeVille with full power and a/c, a mild custom with Lake pipes, chrome rims and baby moons with wide whites, pearlesent white with perfect black and white leather interior. An Imperial or Lincoln could run rings around the Cad but it was very satisfying on the road cruising at 80-100 mph. I loved the looks of most Ford products, and build quality was there, however, the suspensions on stock Ford and Mercury's was frightening, the Lincoln was damn good and handled close to as well as Imperial, which could be why it wasn't in the test. My current list of cars show my preferences, a near new 1956 DeSoto Fireflite, two 1957 Plymouth Belvederes, a SportCoupe and convertible, two 1963 Buick Electra Limited convertibles which with HD suspension feel exactly like the best torsion bar Chrysler ever, two Buick Rivieras 1964 and 1965, two 1964 Imperials, a Crown coupe and Convertible, and Crown sedans from 1965 and 1966.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. GM was so impressed (and intimidated) by Chrysler's Forward Look, that they tore up their 1959 facelifts of the new for 1958 designs and started from a clean sheet of paper. I'm going to presume you've seen a 1959 Cadillac.
Chrysler was a step ahead of Ford and GM in engineering for decades. Even the '57 Plymouth, Dodge and DeSoto cars benefitted from that expertise along with Chrysler and Imperial.
I had a personal test with a '58 Windsor and a '57 Olds back in 1962. The Chrysler ran good enough and had plenty power but DAMN it sounded like all 4 windows were down and it had ball bearings scattered inside the body panels. The Olds was very quiet and smooth at speed but the Chrysler sounded as if it would fly to pieces any second. I told the guy who tried to sell me the Chrysler that it had good power but I wanted a family car we could ride for hours on long trips comfortably, so I picked the Olds. I was always glad I did. It gave us over 200,000 miles of comfy travel.
We lived on a ranch 30 miles from town, rustic gravel/dirt roads. Mom and Dad switched from GM to Chrysler in 56, and never went back, our Chryslers held up on that rustic road FAR, F A R better than the neighbors with GM and Ford products, our cars pulled trailers, were out in the fields, and were NOT rattle traps.
These film reels were made by Ross Roy, Inc for the Chrysler Corporation. They were meant to show salespeople about the advantages against the competition.
The engineering on the Chryslers was really outstanding. Unfortunately, the build quality left much to be desired. They were fast! I raced her Desoto (hemi, 2bb carb) against a 58 Tbird and blew his doors off. These cars were great on curves, but the body construction left something to be desired.
Thomas Andrews I agree. I used to own both 1959 and 1960 Plymouth Furies and always felt the engineers did a great job but the workers on the lines let them down.
@@johneddy908 ....a lesson lost on Chrysler by the time the F-bodies came out, another rust bucket which once again put Chrysler into a massive tailspin that almost bankrupted it. Later, Iacocca knew what to do with the F-body...he turned it into the M-body by simply extending the platform and straightening the greenhouse....a move that made the Fifth Avenue Chrysler's most profitable car all the way to the end of RWD. Iacocca didn't build good cars...he built PROFITABLE cars.
@@leemartin2990 Quit blaming the line workers... BAD BODY ENGINEERING was the problem. Line workers just put the crap together that Exner wanted. Only a Trumpling would make that statement.
@@desertbob6835 - Only a stoner dirtbag Dem would launch such a ludicrous and outrageous attack on someone making a valid point. Go back to your bong and shut up.
This test very well could be rigged, but I don't doubt the results. All these cars had similarly powerful V8s, but Chrysler had a huge advantage at this time with the TorqueFlite automatic. The Dynaflow and 4-speed Hydramatic were groundbreaking technology a few years earlier, but the TF was the next generation of efficiency and performance and it took awhile for everyone else to catch up. A torsion bar front suspension isn't inherently better than an A-arm/double wishbone design, but Chrysler was really the first American company to try and strike a balance between handling and ride quality rather than focusing on comfort alone. GM's philosophy at the time, especially for Buick, Olds and Caddy, was "the softer the better" and many people still believed that more weight *improved* handling in the 50s! The styling on the '57 Chryslers was also totally radical and ushered in the over-the-top, huge fin blow-out at the end of the '50s. The wild '59 Cadillacs and Chevrolets were a direct response to these cars. The one thing this video doesn't tell us is that for all their many virtues, the "Forward Look" Chryslers were also a massive quality control disaster. They were rushed into production and many were rusting, rattling and running poorly within a year or two of leaving the showroom. This was a huge blow to Chrysler, because they had previously been seen as a rock-solid reliable, if somewhat boring and conservative make. The '57s sold great, but also burned a lot of converts and turned off many traditional Chrysler diehards!
southshore516 So true! By the end of 1957 the service guys at the MoPar dealerships were very busy addressing outrageous problems new car owners were having. In some Plymouths, water was leaking on the driver's foot when it rained. They rusted fast and seat materials were dry-rotted by the time they were being traded in between 1960-62. This made liars of MoPar, whose 1957 ads assured buyers they'd get more on their trade-ins down the road than with a Chevy or Ford. Chrysler issued "kits" to dealers for the 1958 models which helped a little, but by then the damage was done. This disaster lead to the conversion to uni-body for 1960 but those rusted fast as well. In the late 1950s, the US tried to help Japan recover from WWII by importing low-grade, rust-prone steel salvaged from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some of this was purchased by the big 3 for automobiles, adding to the rust problem.
+southshore516 this ain't got nothing to do with the suspension design, just the spring. the T-bar mopar system had 2 control arms (double wishbone?) per side just like most cars back then, only with torsion bars which took allot of unsprung weight from the suspension system. these cars handle great and just the bodys had quality problems the drivetrains were very reliable.
It most certainly was rigged. Most of the tests are performed and filmed in a way making them easy to bend to Chrysler's favor. Most telling is road tests by magazines of the era did NOT mostly favor Chrysler products in many of the tests. Ford and GM cars routinely out accelerated and/or out braked Chrysler vehicles. Plus everything is a trade off. For example the rear end squat of Ford and GM vehicles in these tests helps traction off the line. And flatter handling means a more stiff ride. Chrysler can't change the laws of physics they can just make different trade offs. That said Chrysler absolutely fell on their face past about 1970 and, despite the temporary popularity of the craptacular K car platform they based way too many cars on, they never really recovered save for a few exceptions like some of the Jeep Grand Cherokees. Having to sell out to first Damlier then Fiat pretty much says it all. The early 60's were probably some of Chrysler's best years despite all the issues with shoddy quality.
You are absolutly right. I still remember the bitter claims of Chrysler, Dodge an Plymouth cars in Popular Mechanics, Cience and Mechanic Ilustrated and other.
The styling of the '57 Chrysler Corporation cars was significantly more modern and attractive than the competitors. But - as beautiful as I think all these cars are now - at the time, a significant segment of American car buyers was getting fed up with immense size and increasing weight and gaudy styling. 1958 and '59 marked the first boom in sales of imported cars, mostly compact and at that time almost entirely European. This was the start of the process that's gotten us to today, where GM is no longer the biggest car maker in the world, and Toyota and VW are fighting for #1.
Obviously you've never read about the Chrysler cars of that period much less had first hand experience. The GM cars used springs and shocks that were so soft, you could bottom them out with a shove down of your hand. Independant test after test, magazine articles, not Chrysler commercials showed their cars to have handling superiority over their competitors. But the cars had other issues that caused sales to nosedive. It wasn't because they couldn't handle well.
What the hell ever happened to race on Sunday and win on Monday, the industry still makes cars so why is so alienated from the other, this is why mistakes are frequently overlooked due to lack of real world testing.
O.K. Great if you are looking to enter your "New" 1957 car into the Hell on Wheels competition at the local fairgrounds then go torsion bar Chrysler. But I would think as today one would buy a full size car and back then they were all full size cars, for the ride and comfort not for the gymnastic rock hard ride that torsion bar ridding suspension provides. Rock hard is what you want at Willow Glen or Infinion Raceway but for the street or the highway give me that famous Boulevard Buick ride every time !
I also ask why in the 1957 and 1958 Nascar races (Orange Speedway, Daytona Beach and several others), there is no Chrysler, Dodge or Plymouth. No car from Chrysler Corporation. They just ran and won Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Ford. If the Chrysler cars were so powerful, so fast, with such good brakes and good suspension as this bad video intended to demonstrate in this video, the situation in the main races would have been very different.
father had lots of Chrysler Plymouths, Big Chrysler Imperial LeBaron, little rear window 1965 3 ton beast 440 C.I i had a 1971 Imperial...And a 1970 new Yorker cars where as long as a bus! And a Windsor...dopy fins, fins where in
The Chryslers would have been powered by the 354 Hemi. The Imperial, with the 392 Hemi. Surprised they omitted the Chrysler 300C with the most potent 392. "Big Bill" France flat out refused to allow the 300C to be raced in NASCAR in 1957. Would have dominated.
Remember--coil springs are just torsion bars wrapped in a circle. The wire in coil springs twists exactly the same way--no bending stresses. Chrysler cars obviously had stiffer springs, better shock absorbers and lower centers of gravity. And let us not forget leaf spring windup--note the Imperial's ass actually rises during the acceleration test. The GM's all had coils in the back and squatted like a dog taking a, uh, . . ..
Chrysler sold about a quarter of amount of GM cars back then. i always thought mopar looked better, but build quality was real poor. Mopars are still a good buy today, no problem with any of my caravans over the past 25yrs - except for rust.. All these cars rusted like crazy - especially GM in 60's
that 394 olds turned on and i am a dodge guy but i think the race was shortened just a little 394 was a comming on quick would that hemi out run it top end i would love to know wide open top end
'57 Olds had the 371" engine... He said it was kept in Drive... the Buick in Low Turbine... I assume the Chryslers were manually shifted... My '57 Olds 4 bbl. beat a '57 Olds Tri-Power if I held each gear, let it rev, and manually shifted it instead of letting it short shift in Drive... Don't think 394" Olds engine came until '59...
The narrator's voice sounds so familiar. Recognize the voice from watching many similar types of films from the 50"s and 60"s but can not put his name to it. Any guesses?
Always been a Mopar fan, but can see where the video was biased. Simple as the brake test, 4 wheel drum brakes, which cars had the adjusters properly set up. And knowing each Mopar was fine tuned. But at the same time their competition did the same, when comparing products. It still goes on today, you will bring your finest tuned car, to a comparison.
Notice on the 3rd 0-60 run the Buick Century was almost even with the Chrysler and they cut the video short. I bet the Buick was about to pass the Chrysler.
The "Forward Look" of these cars was SUPPOSED to come out in' '59, but Virgil Exner moved styling up two years to catch up to GM in new styling. Engineering didn't have a chance to find and fix all the design flaws before the '56 rollout and, as a result, '57 Chrysler products were horrid, both in quality control AND design. Powertrain-wise, the big move ahead was the 3 speed Torqueflite and some superior engines, The original "Forward Look" cars in '55 were quite competitive against GM's A bodies in both style and reliability, but were hampered by the 2 speed Powerflite in the Dodge and Chryslers against GM's Hydra-Matics in Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac. The Powerflite was superior, though, against Buick's Dynaflush, which made the '57 and '58 Buicks the thirstiest cars on the road. Like all late '50s and early '60s Chrysler cars, build quality was nil, and they were notorious for tinny sounding bodies and loud road noise, not to mention lousy interior materials. Elwood Engle would fix all this later with the '63s, which started Chrysler's best years, the mid-'60s. After the 'fuselage look" came in '69, things started south again and they've never recovered, except for Iacocca's K car recovery platform and the minivans. His LH cars had bad engines, and everything since has basically been junk.
When Mopar was set the standard of the whole American car industry... probably this and the 80s was it for them. Their part Italiano now. Who knows what it'll do now...
These commercial were so hysterical though. We are just supposed to trust the drivers of the other cars to be honest? Lol btw the Buick century beautiful car
In '57, Chrysler had the suspensions, hot hemi engines and the new Torqflite, all superior to the competition. They also had tinny undamped bodies that rusted out in five years with Exner's ever-screwier styling cues, crappy interior materials that were shot in no time and more rattles and squeaks than all the competition combined. They were also notorious for windshield and roof rib water leaks. Because of those derogatives, Chrysler Corp. suffered greatly in the recession of '58, worse than did Ford with Hank the Douche's incredibly poor Edsel and boat anchor unibody Lincoln. Although the Big 3 all did poorly in '58, Chrysler got smacked the worst by far, which hampered their recovery by years. This led to the ouster of Virgil Exner and the slow recovery under Elwood Engel, which led to some of Chrysler's best years. But Exner's goal of taking the #2 spot away from Ford again by 1959 was forever dashed by inattention to matters that made owners come back for more of the same, while overconcentrating on matters that would sell them the first time. Al Sloan over at GM knew repeat buyers were the key to success, one reason why GM suffered less than either Chrysler or Ford in '58. The Exner Imperial of '57 barely made a dent in Cadillac sales, and worsened in '58.
The truth is I feel ashamed of the satraps who did this dishonest video. When reading the comments, it is seen that annoys even the hardcore MOPAR. I insist, with the good quality of their cars, Chrysler does not need and never needed to make a video as dishonest as this one.
It's called Torsion Aire.. they don't have Air shocks.. it's just how classic Mopar ride, Front A arms have mounting points at higher and lower angles making them bind as suspension compresses, the Rear Leaf are super long, the Axel is mounted almost 1/3 toward the front mount of leaf, making the Rear Leaf Twist less under take off, even my Daily driver 68 DART is smoother over bumps and won't bottom out.. peace ..
I loved the designs of the Chrysler products but, the overly stiff ride turned off many prospective buyers. Back then, the soft ride is what people wanted. They would never have driven a Cadillac or Buick over train tracks at such a speed. They would have accepted that too as part of driving a car that was softly sprung. As for the pylons, the cars from G.M. did avoid the first two. That is what would have been expected under normal circumstances. How many times would a driver be faced with a situation where he/she would have had such a situation in real life of avoiding 6 or 7 objects in a row? Also, it is obvious that the braking was rigged. If the cars were tuned to factory specifications, the rear brakes would not have grabbed like in these tests. In the brake fade test, it is obvious that the Cadillac was purposely driven off the side of the road. To get a good ride in a Chrysler product, back then, you'd have to have gone 80 MPH or faster whereas you could float along at 65 -70 MPH in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac and get a better and more comfortable ride. The seats were also cushier in the G.M. cars.
Fun watch. In today's world of tasteless, worthless cars like the Prius, Civic and Corolla, none of the results matter and I would gladly own any of those cars. However if we were in 1957 I would buy the New Yorker then the Windsor, then the Olds Super 88 in that order.
These tests prove very little. They can and probably show deliberate bias toward Chrysler. They probably had Chrysler-paid drivers in all cars. I've seen many of these videos where deliberate bias, call it rigging if you like, is done to make the supposedly standout car in question perform better than its competitors, when in reality the differences are so insignificant that they are pathetic at best.
this is bs. they obviously removed the shocks on all the cars except for the chryslers. and if torsion bar suspension was better than coils, then most of todays cars would be equipped with them. still an awsome video though.
This video is very little objective. It is so biased that bothers who knows anything about mechanics, even the funs of Mopar cars. Both GM cars such as Chrysler were very good, even when precisely in 1957, the MOPAR cars were heavily criticized by their owners for bad endings. (Popular Mechanics, Motor Trends, Science and Mechanics Illustrated) The power and performance of a car are important; even more brakes and stability. I think with the quality of cars MOPAR not need to make a video as biased and dishonest. It is shocking and damaging to their interests. I advise download these hateful videos. Noblesse oblige
@Fairfaxcat I had lots of these old chryslers,way over pressurized,zero feedback horrible washed out steering. Back then they thought it was good to have zero road feel and be able to turn the wheel with one fibger,it sucked. I had chrysler imperial 1971 Newport new Yorkers all same washed out light steering...horrible stuff
@@cengebWell, the people I let drive my 74 Dodge got a kick out of the steering. Two of them said the same thing, "It feels like the steering wheel isn't attached to anything!" Haha
Have to take this with a grain of salt. We are on a Chrysler test track in a film being produced by MOPAR. Sorry, but, even for the era when this was produced, the bias is just too great. I would rather have a comparison from a PURELY independent tester. Having the manufacturer sponsor a test makes the results biased, skewed, slanted and worthless. Sorry, Chrysler, your results of this test are bogus.
Greatest video, thanks for sharing! The curve and railroad crossing tests are magnificent !
The Buick and Olds drivers ate DRUNK
I bought a LOT of cars over the years, most everything built through all the 50's. The 57-58 Olds (I had "98" convertibles from both years, and a 57 Super 88 coupe, all equipped with 'J-2' tri power, the converts were full power equipped, the 58 had air suspension) Both 98's , with HD shocks would dig up asphalt on corners or sharp dips with the rear bumper , and bottomed the front bumper often enough it fell off on the way to San Fransisco. They could all keep up with the 2 bbl Windsor, all the rest of the cars in this test could beat the Old's. When the 394 came out in '59 Olds got faster. The fastest Buick in 57-58 was the Century, (I had 7 57 Buicks in all series, and 14 58 Buicks in all series including convertibles.) The Century's could take Windsor and Saratogas, match the Imperial, and just loose to the New Yorker. The way to do it was in LOW gear from 0-60, which was very quick at 0-60 in 7.8-7.9 seconds, in DRIVE is was 9 seconds. I did have rear shocks tear out of their mounts on several of my 57- 58 Buicks driving fast on bumpy roads. I had a dozen 57 Cadillacs and another dozen 58's including two convertibles from each year. Any V8 Chrysler product could out-do a 57-58 Cadillac in all performance categorizes. However, I loved the way these looked, my favorite being an extended deck Sedan DeVille with full power and a/c, a mild custom with Lake pipes, chrome rims and baby moons with wide whites, pearlesent white with perfect black and white leather interior. An Imperial or Lincoln could run rings around the Cad but it was very satisfying on the road cruising at 80-100 mph. I loved the looks of most Ford products, and build quality was there, however, the suspensions on stock Ford and Mercury's was frightening, the Lincoln was damn good and handled close to as well as Imperial, which could be why it wasn't in the test. My current list of cars show my preferences, a near new 1956 DeSoto Fireflite, two 1957 Plymouth Belvederes, a SportCoupe and convertible, two 1963 Buick Electra Limited convertibles which with HD suspension feel exactly like the best torsion bar Chrysler ever, two Buick Rivieras 1964 and 1965, two 1964 Imperials, a Crown coupe and Convertible, and Crown sedans from 1965 and 1966.
We had Imerial LeBARON!! 1965 Black with blue leather...the little window in back...Crown was the poor man model!!! hahahahahaha
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. GM was so impressed (and intimidated) by Chrysler's Forward Look, that they tore up their 1959 facelifts of the new for 1958 designs and started from a clean sheet of paper. I'm going to presume you've seen a 1959 Cadillac.
Chrysler was a step ahead of Ford and GM in engineering for decades. Even the '57 Plymouth, Dodge and DeSoto cars benefitted from that expertise along with Chrysler and Imperial.
That new yorker is such a happy car.
I had a personal test with a '58 Windsor and a '57 Olds back in 1962. The Chrysler
ran good enough and had plenty power but DAMN it sounded like all 4 windows were
down and it had ball bearings scattered inside the body panels. The Olds was very
quiet and smooth at speed but the Chrysler sounded as if it would fly to pieces any
second. I told the guy who tried to sell me the Chrysler that it had good power but
I wanted a family car we could ride for hours on long trips comfortably, so I picked
the Olds. I was always glad I did. It gave us over 200,000 miles of comfy travel.
We lived on a ranch 30 miles from town, rustic gravel/dirt roads. Mom and Dad switched from GM to Chrysler in 56, and never went back, our Chryslers held up on that rustic road FAR, F A R better than the neighbors with GM and Ford products, our cars pulled trailers, were out in the fields, and were NOT rattle traps.
All beautiful cars IMHO!
These film reels were made by Ross Roy, Inc for the Chrysler Corporation. They were meant to show salespeople about the advantages against the competition.
The engineering on the Chryslers was really outstanding. Unfortunately, the build quality left much to be desired. They were fast! I raced her Desoto (hemi, 2bb carb) against a 58 Tbird and blew his doors off. These cars were great on curves, but the body construction left something to be desired.
Thomas Andrews I agree. I used to own both 1959 and 1960 Plymouth Furies and always felt the engineers did a great job but the workers on the lines let them down.
Chrysler did manage to improve build quality three years after this clip was made by introducing the seven-step dip and spray anti-rust process.
@@johneddy908 ....a lesson lost on Chrysler by the time the F-bodies came out, another rust bucket which once again put Chrysler into a massive tailspin that almost bankrupted it. Later, Iacocca knew what to do with the F-body...he turned it into the M-body by simply extending the platform and straightening the greenhouse....a move that made the Fifth Avenue Chrysler's most profitable car all the way to the end of RWD. Iacocca didn't build good cars...he built PROFITABLE cars.
@@leemartin2990 Quit blaming the line workers... BAD BODY ENGINEERING was the problem. Line workers just put the crap together that Exner wanted. Only a Trumpling would make that statement.
@@desertbob6835 - Only a stoner dirtbag Dem would launch such a ludicrous and outrageous attack on someone making a valid point. Go back to your bong and shut up.
This test very well could be rigged, but I don't doubt the results. All these cars had similarly powerful V8s, but Chrysler had a huge advantage at this time with the TorqueFlite automatic. The Dynaflow and 4-speed Hydramatic were groundbreaking technology a few years earlier, but the TF was the next generation of efficiency and performance and it took awhile for everyone else to catch up. A torsion bar front suspension isn't inherently better than an A-arm/double wishbone design, but Chrysler was really the first American company to try and strike a balance between handling and ride quality rather than focusing on comfort alone. GM's philosophy at the time, especially for Buick, Olds and Caddy, was "the softer the better" and many people still believed that more weight *improved* handling in the 50s! The styling on the '57 Chryslers was also totally radical and ushered in the over-the-top, huge fin blow-out at the end of the '50s. The wild '59 Cadillacs and Chevrolets were a direct response to these cars.
The one thing this video doesn't tell us is that for all their many virtues, the "Forward Look" Chryslers were also a massive quality control disaster. They were rushed into production and many were rusting, rattling and running poorly within a year or two of leaving the showroom. This was a huge blow to Chrysler, because they had previously been seen as a rock-solid reliable, if somewhat boring and conservative make. The '57s sold great, but also burned a lot of converts and turned off many traditional Chrysler diehards!
southshore516 So true! By the end of 1957 the service guys at the MoPar dealerships were very busy addressing outrageous problems new car owners were having. In some Plymouths, water was leaking on the driver's foot when it rained. They rusted fast and seat materials were dry-rotted by the time they were being traded in between 1960-62. This made liars of MoPar, whose 1957 ads assured buyers they'd get more on their trade-ins down the road than with a Chevy or Ford. Chrysler issued "kits" to dealers for the 1958 models which helped a little, but by then the damage was done. This disaster lead to the conversion to uni-body for 1960 but those rusted fast as well. In the late 1950s, the US tried to help Japan recover from WWII by importing low-grade, rust-prone steel salvaged from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some of this was purchased by the big 3 for automobiles, adding to the rust problem.
***** Radiation Rust!
+southshore516 this ain't got nothing to do with the suspension design, just the spring. the T-bar mopar system had 2 control arms (double wishbone?) per side just like most cars back then, only with torsion bars which took allot of unsprung weight from the suspension system. these cars handle great and just the bodys had quality problems the drivetrains were very reliable.
It most certainly was rigged. Most of the tests are performed and filmed in a way making them easy to bend to Chrysler's favor. Most telling is road tests by magazines of the era did NOT mostly favor Chrysler products in many of the tests. Ford and GM cars routinely out accelerated and/or out braked Chrysler vehicles. Plus everything is a trade off. For example the rear end squat of Ford and GM vehicles in these tests helps traction off the line. And flatter handling means a more stiff ride. Chrysler can't change the laws of physics they can just make different trade offs. That said Chrysler absolutely fell on their face past about 1970 and, despite the temporary popularity of the craptacular K car platform they based way too many cars on, they never really recovered save for a few exceptions like some of the Jeep Grand Cherokees. Having to sell out to first Damlier then Fiat pretty much says it all. The early 60's were probably some of Chrysler's best years despite all the issues with shoddy quality.
You are absolutly right. I still remember the bitter claims of Chrysler, Dodge an Plymouth cars in Popular Mechanics, Cience and Mechanic Ilustrated and other.
Which makes it not propaganda at all, but facts.
'Ross Roy, Inc". Now there's an independent testing firm! lol
I love Michigan. It is the best place to do a car test.
The styling of the '57 Chrysler Corporation cars was significantly more modern and attractive than the competitors. But - as beautiful as I think all these cars are now - at the time, a significant segment of American car buyers was getting fed up with immense size and increasing weight and gaudy styling. 1958 and '59 marked the first boom in sales of imported cars, mostly compact and at that time almost entirely European. This was the start of the process that's gotten us to today, where GM is no longer the biggest car maker in the world, and Toyota and VW are fighting for #1.
Obviously you've never read about the Chrysler cars of that period much less had first hand experience. The GM cars used springs and shocks that were so soft, you could bottom them out with a shove down of your hand. Independant test after test, magazine articles, not Chrysler commercials showed their cars to have handling superiority over their competitors. But the cars had other issues that caused sales to nosedive. It wasn't because they couldn't handle well.
What the hell ever happened to race on Sunday and win on Monday, the industry still makes cars so why is so alienated from the other, this is why mistakes are frequently overlooked due to lack of real world testing.
O.K. Great if you are looking to enter your "New" 1957 car into the Hell on Wheels competition at the local fairgrounds then go torsion bar Chrysler. But I would think as today one would buy a full size car and back then they were all full size cars, for the ride and comfort not for the gymnastic rock hard ride that torsion bar ridding suspension provides. Rock hard is what you want at Willow Glen or Infinion Raceway but for the street or the highway give me that famous Boulevard Buick ride every time !
I also ask why in the 1957 and 1958 Nascar races (Orange Speedway, Daytona Beach and several others), there is no Chrysler, Dodge or Plymouth. No car from Chrysler Corporation. They just ran and won Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Ford.
If the Chrysler cars were so powerful, so fast, with such good brakes and good suspension as this bad video intended to demonstrate in this video, the situation in the main races would have been very different.
I am going out and get a new 57 Chrysler.
23:09 The driver appeared to aim for the last cone in this "unbiased" run. Ha ha
Ya you just let off the gas at the beginning of the turn, then straighten out at the end! Every professional driver knows that lol
Very nice Windsor I have my own Windsor 57.Wery god kondition bay the way! 100% Rost frea..
father had lots of Chrysler Plymouths, Big Chrysler Imperial LeBaron, little rear window 1965 3 ton beast 440 C.I i had a 1971 Imperial...And a 1970 new Yorker cars where as long as a bus! And a Windsor...dopy fins, fins where in
The Chryslers would have been powered by the 354 Hemi. The Imperial, with the 392 Hemi. Surprised they omitted the Chrysler 300C with the most potent 392. "Big Bill" France flat out refused to allow the 300C to be raced in NASCAR in 1957. Would have dominated.
The 354 Hemi was 1956 only. The Imperial and New Yorker had the 392 Hemi.
And the Windsor and Saratoga used a 354 that was NOT a hemi
Remember--coil springs are just torsion bars wrapped in a circle. The wire in coil springs twists exactly the same way--no bending stresses. Chrysler cars obviously had stiffer springs, better shock absorbers and lower centers of gravity. And let us not forget leaf spring windup--note the Imperial's ass actually rises during the acceleration test. The GM's all had coils in the back and squatted like a dog taking a, uh, . . ..
Mopar rules every year !
IMPERIAL!!!!!!!!
Where is it know?
👍
Where are the Lincoln and Mercury products?
***** ..there's a '58 road test series that features them (no Edsels, though -- too bad!)
+Barry Bugg Broke.............
Noticed all tests are won from the inside lane
I sense there were free lunches and holidays handed out
Lol.
Chrysler sold about a quarter of amount of GM cars back then. i always thought mopar looked better, but build quality was real poor. Mopars are still a good buy today, no problem with any of my caravans over the past 25yrs - except for rust.. All these cars rusted like crazy - especially GM in 60's
that 394 olds turned on and i am a dodge guy but i think the race was shortened just a little 394 was a comming on quick would that hemi out run it top end i would love to know wide open top end
The Windsor had a smaller engine (354 CID), don't pat the Olds on the back, little boy.
'57 Olds had the 371" engine... He said it was kept in Drive... the Buick in Low Turbine... I assume the Chryslers were manually shifted... My '57 Olds 4 bbl. beat a '57 Olds Tri-Power if I held each gear, let it rev, and manually shifted it instead of letting it short shift in Drive... Don't think 394" Olds engine came until '59...
All Right , who said that they pulled the shocks out of the O;lds. LOL
The narrator's voice sounds so familiar. Recognize the voice from watching many similar types of films from the 50"s and 60"s but can not put his name to it. Any guesses?
Always been a Mopar fan, but can see where the video was biased. Simple as the brake test, 4 wheel drum brakes, which cars had the adjusters properly set up. And knowing each Mopar was fine tuned. But at the same time their competition did the same, when comparing products. It still goes on today, you will bring your finest tuned car, to a comparison.
Notice on the 3rd 0-60 run the Buick Century was almost even with the Chrysler and they cut the video short. I bet the Buick was about to pass the Chrysler.
Lol.
Chrysler outside recessed door handles beat GM stick out door handles.
Looks like Chrysler engineers got "A"s in differential equations class.
The "Forward Look" of these cars was SUPPOSED to come out in' '59, but Virgil Exner moved styling up two years to catch up to GM in new styling. Engineering didn't have a chance to find and fix all the design flaws before the '56 rollout and, as a result, '57 Chrysler products were horrid, both in quality control AND design. Powertrain-wise, the big move ahead was the 3 speed Torqueflite and some superior engines, The original "Forward Look" cars in '55 were quite competitive against GM's A bodies in both style and reliability, but were hampered by the 2 speed Powerflite in the Dodge and Chryslers against GM's Hydra-Matics in Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac. The Powerflite was superior, though, against Buick's Dynaflush, which made the '57 and '58 Buicks the thirstiest cars on the road. Like all late '50s and early '60s Chrysler cars, build quality was nil, and they were notorious for tinny sounding bodies and loud road noise, not to mention lousy interior materials. Elwood Engle would fix all this later with the '63s, which started Chrysler's best years, the mid-'60s. After the 'fuselage look" came in '69, things started south again and they've never recovered, except for Iacocca's K car recovery platform and the minivans. His LH cars had bad engines, and everything since has basically been junk.
Thnx for information.. BUT... "horrid, in design" - WTF?
No bias here...rriight...😂
i know right!! i thought it was going to be an unbiased comparison test
When Mopar was set the standard of the whole American car industry... probably this and the 80s was it for them. Their part Italiano now. Who knows what it'll do now...
Don’t you mean French? Fiat-Chrysler is now a subsidiary of Peugeot/Citroen of France.
@@kcindc5539They are all part of Stellantis.
Chrysler stomps the competition in every test, proven over and over Chrysler wins.
SOY FANATICO DE GMC PERO DEBO CONFESAR QUE LOS CRYSLER LOS MATA A TODOS!!!
no Chevy tested that's y
The Cadillac looks like it's had the shocks removed or replaced with old ones.
I wonder how much slant was given to the chrysler cars....sounds like a long chrysler commercial to me.
These commercial were so hysterical though. We are just supposed to trust the drivers of the other cars to be honest? Lol btw the Buick century beautiful car
Lol the tests were held at the Chrysler proving grounds.
ok
Chryslers in the late 50's had too many "updates" to the forward look. They didn't look as good as they did in the early 50s.
In '57, Chrysler had the suspensions, hot hemi engines and the new Torqflite, all superior to the competition. They also had tinny undamped bodies that rusted out in five years with Exner's ever-screwier styling cues, crappy interior materials that were shot in no time and more rattles and squeaks than all the competition combined. They were also notorious for windshield and roof rib water leaks. Because of those derogatives, Chrysler Corp. suffered greatly in the recession of '58, worse than did Ford with Hank the Douche's incredibly poor Edsel and boat anchor unibody Lincoln. Although the Big 3 all did poorly in '58, Chrysler got smacked the worst by far, which hampered their recovery by years. This led to the ouster of Virgil Exner and the slow recovery under Elwood Engel, which led to some of Chrysler's best years. But Exner's goal of taking the #2 spot away from Ford again by 1959 was forever dashed by inattention to matters that made owners come back for more of the same, while overconcentrating on matters that would sell them the first time. Al Sloan over at GM knew repeat buyers were the key to success, one reason why GM suffered less than either Chrysler or Ford in '58. The Exner Imperial of '57 barely made a dent in Cadillac sales, and worsened in '58.
The truth is I feel ashamed of the satraps who did this dishonest video. When reading the comments, it is seen that annoys even the hardcore MOPAR. I insist, with the good quality of their cars, Chrysler does not need and never needed to make a video as dishonest as this one.
Air suspension is always a better ride than spring suspension, no matter who builds it lol... Not fooled!
It's called Torsion Aire.. they don't have Air shocks.. it's just how classic Mopar ride, Front A arms have mounting points at higher and lower angles making them bind as suspension compresses, the Rear Leaf are super long, the Axel is mounted almost 1/3 toward the front mount of leaf, making the Rear Leaf Twist less under take off, even my Daily driver 68 DART is smoother over bumps and won't bottom out.. peace ..
@@AtZero138 wow! Thats awsome! Thank you for sharing!😁
Chrysler test driver slows down on every test and there isn't ford so the test is flawed. the harps are beautiful though.
After Chrysler 300, Road Runner, GTX Cuda' , they did the K car, the END of Chrysler!!
WAW THE IN PIRIOR WAS THE WENOR .ON NO SKUAYIRIIMG. VAY WAT A BAUT MPG AN HP ..
I loved the designs of the Chrysler products but, the overly stiff ride turned off many prospective buyers. Back then, the soft ride is what people wanted. They would never have driven a Cadillac or Buick over train tracks at such a speed. They would have accepted that too as part of driving a car that was softly sprung. As for the pylons, the cars from G.M. did avoid the first two. That is what would have been expected under normal circumstances.
How many times would a driver be faced with a situation where he/she would have had such a situation in real life of avoiding 6 or 7 objects in a row?
Also, it is obvious that the braking was rigged. If the cars were tuned to factory specifications, the rear brakes would not have grabbed like in these tests. In the brake fade test, it is obvious that the Cadillac was purposely driven off the side of the road.
To get a good ride in a Chrysler product, back then, you'd have to have gone 80 MPH or faster whereas you could float along at 65 -70 MPH in an Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac and get a better and more comfortable ride. The seats were also cushier in the G.M. cars.
I am Mopar from go to whoa, but we all know that the olds was a far better performer than these old films show
Fun watch. In today's world of tasteless, worthless cars like the Prius, Civic and Corolla, none of the results matter and I would gladly own any of those cars. However if we were in 1957 I would buy the New Yorker then the Windsor, then the Olds Super 88 in that order.
still no Chevy
These tests prove very little. They can and probably show deliberate bias toward Chrysler. They probably had Chrysler-paid drivers in all cars. I've seen many of these videos where deliberate bias, call it rigging if you like, is done to make the supposedly standout car in question perform better than its competitors, when in reality the differences are so insignificant that they are pathetic at best.
this is bs. they obviously removed the shocks on all the cars except for the chryslers. and if torsion bar suspension was better than coils, then most of todays cars would be equipped with them. still an awsome video though.
those Mopars had the power all right, but they were homely as all get out...
such junk compared to modern cars
This video is very little objective. It is so biased that bothers who knows anything about mechanics, even the funs of Mopar cars. Both GM cars such as Chrysler were very good, even when precisely in 1957, the MOPAR cars were heavily criticized by their owners for bad endings. (Popular Mechanics, Motor Trends, Science and Mechanics Illustrated)
The power and performance of a car are important; even more brakes and stability. I think with the quality of cars MOPAR not need to make a video as biased and dishonest. It is shocking and damaging to their interests. I advise download these hateful videos. Noblesse oblige
The video is very little objective.
Chrysler power steering was too easy, complete washed out, no feel, horrible
Why do you say that? Chrysler had full time power steering. You must know know very much.
@Fairfaxcat I had lots of these old chryslers,way over pressurized,zero feedback horrible washed out steering. Back then they thought it was good to have zero road feel and be able to turn the wheel with one fibger,it sucked. I had chrysler imperial 1971 Newport new Yorkers all same washed out light steering...horrible stuff
@Fairfaxcat what does that even mean,full time power steering? Do you know anything about feedback road feel, turns ratios. ?
@@cengeb I know they had full time power steering. I’m sure they invested a lot of money in it.
@@cengebWell, the people I let drive my 74 Dodge got a kick out of the steering. Two of them said the same thing, "It feels like the steering wheel isn't attached to anything!" Haha
Have to take this with a grain of salt. We are on a Chrysler test track in a film being produced by MOPAR. Sorry, but, even for the era when this was produced, the bias is just too great. I would rather have a comparison from a PURELY independent tester. Having the manufacturer sponsor a test makes the results biased, skewed, slanted and worthless. Sorry, Chrysler, your results of this test are bogus.
Chrysler propaganda,what a load of bs
Which makes it not propaganda at all, but facts.