Jump to content


Photo

The Mickey Thompson 'Sears Allstate Special' cars of 1964


  • Please log in to reply
1764 replies to this topic

#1101 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 August 2008 - 18:10

I read the same thing about Jimmy Reece (and it is Jimmy, not Jerry). But, it was from Brock Yates, who even speculated that Reece's overwhelming guilt and grief might have led to him essentially committing suicide at Trenton :rolleyes:

Considering Yates' recent blather, this must have been a preview.

Regardless of any exaggeration or embellishment, I too have heard it bothered Reece tremendously. Hopefully this is from more than just Yates.

As far as Ed Elisian, he screwed up big time in the '58 '500', but I think that we can agree that despite that, he isn't responsible for everything bad in the World. Surely he didn't kill the Lindbergh baby. Though apparently the Rathmanns and O'Connor supporters felt he was the only person responsible and it led to media harassment to Elisian's death, and as evidenced by stories still posted on message boards - long after. Interestingly, as in the link to the '64 '500', I found Sports Illustrated articles on the '58 race that were critical of Elisian, but didn't crucify him. The witch-hunt came elsewhere.

I agree that other than the types of situations Buford described, one can't fault those who react to others mistakes. Or at least, they shouldn't. Even in some of those cases, like the way ARCA superspeedway crashes used to happen...the fault to me lies as much with the officials who let unproven and untested drivers jump from 1/4 mile dirt tracks to Daytona or Talladega without any kind of screening.

Despite the good intentions, I fail to see how blaming anyone else helps anyone. Not realistically.

And two separate accidents?...sorry.

Advertisement

#1102 Walter Zoomie

Walter Zoomie
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 September 2008 - 23:23

Found this today while going through some other junk. Thought it might be of interest...

Posted Image

#1103 FLB

FLB
  • Member

  • 1,921 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 10 September 2008 - 23:27

Originally posted by Walter Zoomie
Found this today while going through some other junk. Thought it might be of interest...

Posted Image

When and where was this article published?

#1104 Walter Zoomie

Walter Zoomie
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 September 2008 - 23:39

Indianapolis Star, 1964. The day after the race...

#1105 Flat Black

Flat Black
  • Member

  • 480 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 11 September 2008 - 02:10

Any chance of getting a legible transcript of the article?

#1106 kris-kincaid

kris-kincaid
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 September 2008 - 02:52

Click the picture, or go here http://img299.images...darticlevn8.jpg

#1107 Russ Snyder

Russ Snyder
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 September 2008 - 12:15

Originally posted by Walter Zoomie
Indianapolis Star, 1964. The day after the race...



Thanks Walter! As always....

#1108 Flat Black

Flat Black
  • Member

  • 480 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 11 September 2008 - 14:23

Originally posted by kris-kincaid
Click the picture, or go here http://img299.images...darticlevn8.jpg


Why didn't I think of that?
:blush:

"Lift and float" on the curves doesn't sound very good at all.

#1109 B Squared

B Squared
  • Member

  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 14 September 2008 - 17:54

I've found this to be a very interesting thread from my first reading of it. My dad was at the race, my brother & I were listening to it on the radio on the back porch and I still have the newspapers from the following days of the event. I am currently without a scanner, but I have a Sports Illustrated dated June 22, 1964. In it appears an article titled "After the Indianapolis fire: an argument" it is on pages 54 & 55. Maybe someone out there has access to it & can post its content. If not, I will be correcting my computer situation soon. Nothing of earth-shattering note, only that it is interesting to see how the initial investigation of events was approached. And a cutaway drawing of the Thompson/ MacDonald cars single fuel cell.

#1110 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,680 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 September 2008 - 18:42

Originally posted by B Squared
.....I am currently without a scanner, but I have a Sports Illustrated dated June 22, 1964.....


Take the magazine into good light, but not direct sun, lay it out flat, focus your digital camera on it and shoot...

Scanners are almost unnecessary today.

#1111 B Squared

B Squared
  • Member

  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 14 September 2008 - 19:55

Thank you for your advice, Mr. Bell. However, I still only shoot with 35mm! Digital for work only. My Great Uncle was Ernest Brooks Sr., who founded Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara, CA, many years ago and I still practice the disipline the way it was taught to me! Looks like I may have to revisit the issue.

#1112 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 15 September 2008 - 16:59

Not wanting to stifle your efforts, but I believe this article is available at the Sports Illustrated "Vault":

http://vault.sportsi...76051/index.htm

:)

#1113 B Squared

B Squared
  • Member

  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 15 September 2008 - 17:36

That is the article. Thanks for the help, I really need to come out of the "stone age."

#1114 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 15 September 2008 - 20:41

As with many articles and interviews posted just after the event, this one is also flawed but they have dictated history for over 40 years.

"After a long, high-speed slide—he must have been doing 140 mph as it began—MacDonald hit the low concrete inner track wall approximately head on."

This group has put together the best explination of that days events, sometimes with great emotion.

Henry

#1115 Russ Snyder

Russ Snyder
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 September 2008 - 23:10

Originally posted by HistoricMustang
As with many articles and interviews posted just after the event, this one is also flawed but they have dictated history for over 40 years.

"After a long, high-speed slide—he must have been doing 140 mph as it began—MacDonald hit the low concrete inner track wall approximately head on."

This group has put together the best explination of that days events, sometimes with great emotion.

Henry


Henry!

Glad to see you came back...!!!!

Thoughts - we know Dave did a 180 and hit sideways, not head on. I would give the article a little leeway since it was probably written BEFORE the home movies became avail that showed the 180 slide into the concrete.... I also think the 140ish MPH is about right. I guess anywheres between 120-140mph is what Dave and company were doing off turn 4....just my 2 cents....

#1116 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 16 September 2008 - 00:00

Originally posted by Russ Snyder


Henry!

Glad to see you came back...!!!!


Hi Russ! :wave:

I was never really gone and with someone handing me over 200 photographs from a simple CART race in 1979, which are going up in another thread, I just wonder how many photographs from the 1964 Indy are sitting in shoe boxes or have been thrown away by uninterested children after the passing of parents.

Any one of those photographs could add or take away from what we have been discussing here at the Mickey Thompson thread.

Henry

#1117 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 September 2008 - 07:08

Originally posted by HistoricMustang
As with many articles and interviews posted just after the event, this one is also flawed but they have dictated history for over 40 years.

"After a long, high-speed slide—he must have been doing 140 mph as it began—MacDonald hit the low concrete inner track wall approximately head on."

This group has put together the best explination of that days events, sometimes with great emotion.

Henry



Henry,

What I find gripping in the article mentioned by B Squared and the link for it provided by Fines (Gentlemen, thank you very much!) is this.
Maybe it has some flaws but then: it also stated already that the Thompson had a 45 gallon fuel tank, not a 100 gallon one. And that Sachs' car didn't explose and had only lost about 12 gallons of fuel.
Thus within months after the tragedy, a major magazine had already published these facts. But some of them had been printed within a week after the accident in the local newspapers too.

But, as the early pages of this thread proved, the legend about the 100 gallon tank cars exploding at the start lived on for more than 40 years.....
Not mentioning a number of other oversights that came to light here.


Discovery Channel runs that Documentary Series "Seconds from Disaster, explaining how some major tragedies could happen. Now I know it was `only` a motor racing accident.
Still I wonder what the makers of these programs could do with this subject and what they would come up with in addition to what is known already.



Henri

#1118 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 16 September 2008 - 09:12

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


Still I wonder what the makers of these programs could do with this subject and what they would come up with in addition to what is known already.

Henri


Hi Henri and yes I also wonder what could, and one day perhaps will, happen if a full blown documentary is produced. Especially with information that might be found in the archives at Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

I have been unable to produce any form of official accident investigation that should have been presented to the MacDonald family. The family is not aware of any that was presented and correct me if I am wrong, this is/was pretty standard practice. This could produce an entirely different topic for us - "Is it a requirement that sanctioning bodies present family members with investigations after fatal accidents?"

Was a report given to the Sachs family? Anyone?

Henry

#1119 B Squared

B Squared
  • Member

  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 16 September 2008 - 09:55

I thimk that the suggestion of a "Seconds from Disaster" type program would be intriguing. That series did a report on the Senna / Imola accident, so it might well be within their realm.

Advertisement

#1120 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 September 2008 - 10:43

Related with the topic but maybe I missed this.
I need to have my memory refreshed.

There has been talk about Mickey milking Ford for no less than 5 Ford engines for his 1964 efforts.
But how many cars did he eventually have at the track?

I know of the two that qualified for the race and the wrecked titanium car.
But the other two cars, what were they? "Skates" or revamped 1962 heritage "Pseudo-Coopers" ?

Thanks for filling me in,

Henri

#1121 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 16 September 2008 - 13:12

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Related with the topic but maybe I missed this.
I need to have my memory refreshed.

There has been talk about Mickey milking Ford for no less than 5 Ford engines for his 1964 efforts.
But how many cars did he eventually have at the track?

I know of the two that qualified for the race and the wrecked titanium car.
But the other two cars, what were they? "Skates" or revamped 1962 heritage "Pseudo-Coopers" ?

Thanks for filling me in,

Henri



Not sure of the number of cars or what configuration they might have been, but I think I've read that Dave MacDonald blew an engine in practice. That would account for 4 engines, since three cars made attempts to qualify.

Dan

#1122 antonvrs

antonvrs
  • Member

  • 489 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 16 September 2008 - 14:36

What's this Pseudo-Cooper business? I see very little resemblance to any Cooper.
Anton

#1123 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 September 2008 - 14:55

Originally posted by antonvrs
What's this Pseudo-Cooper business? I see very little resemblance to any Cooper.
Anton


The 1962 cars looked vaguely like the 1961 Cooper (at least not as different as the "skates" were) and were designed by John Crostwaithe, a former Cooper employer.

Henri

#1124 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 16 September 2008 - 15:22

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


The 1962 cars looked vaguely like the 1961 Cooper (at least not as different as the "skates" were) and were designed by John Crostwaithe, a former Cooper employer.

Henri


Didn't Crosthwaite also design a Lotus at about the same time he did the Thompson car for 1962? I was under the impression that it was a Lotus copy.


Dan

#1125 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 September 2008 - 16:31

Mickey Thompson had only three cars entered at Indy in '64 (#82, #83 & #84), all three reworked '63 chassis with Ford DOHC engines. If he had five engines, then two of them were backups - standard procedure for a team in the sixties.

#1126 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:30

Originally posted by fines
Mickey Thompson had only three cars entered at Indy in '64 (#82, #83 & #84), all three reworked '63 chassis with Ford DOHC engines. If he had five engines, then two of them were backups - standard procedure for a team in the sixties.


Fines, thank you very much.

Henri

#1127 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:58

quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Tom Glowacki
After some digging, I found in Van Valkenburgh's "Chevrolet - Racing", that the aluminum Chevy small block that Penske got from GM in 1963 for his Cooper Monaco weighed 350 pounds. Without getting into the fine points of what was included, or not, in this weight compared to the Ford DOHC, the Ford would have added 50 pounds to the weight of the 1964 Thompson cars, all at the rear and high up.
________________________________________



Back another time to the weight of engines and GC points.
Several of us have already quoted the 1963 Ford V8 (16 valve pushrod) being some 350 pounds and the 1964 Quadcam about 400.
I checked out “Design and Development of the Indycar” by Roger Huntington: he gave similar figures.

Regrettably, still no data on the 1963 Chevrolet engines Mickey Thompson used but he described the 1962 Buick engines Mickey used as: “This engine could be readily bored and stroked to 255 CID and weighted only 280 lbs. in racing trim.” (Page 112, it also has a picture of the 1963 and the photo caption mentions it to have a small GM aluminium V8. This for they who want to verify what I write now and that is is no typo)

So the 1962 Buick engines were a mere 280 pounds!!!

Now I have admitted publicly already that I don’t know enough about the bloodlines of the different Detroit built V8 engines. So I am not certain if the Chevy “Smallblock” is directly related with the Buick or not. Since Huntington stated that the little Buick V8 had just been introduced and the “smallblock” Chevy being around since the mid-fifties I doubt if they were close related, and thus in the similar range regarding weight .
Now I suspect that Mickey Thompson should never have taken an engine that was more powerful but also a lot more heavy then what it replaced. So I would not be surprised at all if the Chevies that Mickey used were even lighter then the above mentioned engine for Penske. And the quoted 350 pounds being about the maximum weight the engine was to be.
Anyway, by now it seems more than likely to me that the 1964 car, compared with the 1963 car indeed had a more heavy engine, thus shifting the GC of the car to the rear. I am not enough of an engineer to know how that affected the grip of the front end compared with the rear end. But the balance of the chassis was changed compared with the year before.
In addition, the Ford also had a higher GC due to the quadcam construction, thus raising the GC. As already suggested, the weight increase from 1963 pushrod to 1964 Quadcam was some 50 lbs, most of that weight have gone above the crankshaft.

And were the suspension settings readjusted for all of these GC influencing factors factors, in addition to what was done to compensate for the larger tires?
Somehow I get the feeling that the mechanical front end grip of the car was reduced due to the changes in GC. Add to that the lift provided by the streamlined frontal part and then I think I begin to understand why the car was so loose and could get out of control so easily.

Comments, feelings on this, anyone?

Thanks,

henri

#1128 Russ Snyder

Russ Snyder
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 September 2008 - 12:12

Henri

You put into words what I could not describe properly earlier, that is; the size of car increased as did engine size and weight overall making the 1964 version a probable bear to handle compared to its 1962 & 63 cousins. Again, the Thompson cars had a fine showing in the 1963 race. Go figure.

#1129 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:06

Gentlemen, let's be sensible! Don't you think that several days of testing, plus a whole month of practise in May would have been enough to get adjusted to whatever surplus weight, or change of COG the Ford engine would have presented??? We are not dealing with amateurs here!!!

Really, this thread is again slipping into no man's land, "clutching at straws"!

#1130 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:17

Originally posted by fines
Gentlemen, let's be sensible! Don't you think that several days of testing, plus a whole month of practise in May would have been enough to get adjusted to whatever surplus weight, or change of COG the Ford engine would have presented???


I see your points Michael.
But the answer on your question for me appears to be: For whatever reasons: No.

Had they been sorted out properly in the days of testing before then they would not have been involved in so many incidents as they were.Yes, much of that could be related with the aerodynamic package and the troubles it created.
But I can't help feeling that there are more factors involved with the spooky handling of the car other than only the aero changes. Maybe they were the same chassis as in 1963 but they were entirely different cars, not only in shape but also mechanically.

Feel free to disagree but I sincerely hope you keep on participating in this thread as you bring valuable info and opinions.

regards, henri

#1131 Russ Snyder

Russ Snyder
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:49

Watch the 1964 Dynamic film and you will see the spins of the Thompson cars, #'s 82,83 & 84, multiple times. One crashes into the wall in the South short chute after a few 360's. That was with NO airflow of other cars causing a disturbance...just a thought.

#1132 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 17 September 2008 - 19:58

Originally posted by fines

Really, this thread is again slipping into no man's land, "clutching at straws"!


I believe this thread began with all of us "clutching at straws".

Along the way it seems we have been able to take a few "gulps" so I would encourage taking some courage and post feelings as well as facts.

A hundreds years from now people will be thankful when they stumble across this thread.

Henry

#1133 Flat Black

Flat Black
  • Member

  • 480 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 17 September 2008 - 20:49

Originally posted by HistoricMustang




A hundreds years from now people will be thankful when they stumble across this thread.

Henry


You foresee virtual archaeologists? Well, I can only hope they're unable to trace some of my posts back to me. My reputation in the history books would suffer mightily!

:D

#1134 Buford

Buford
  • Member

  • 11,173 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 September 2008 - 21:09

Some day thousands of years from now people of the master race will dig down through the rubble that was once our pathetic little tribe's civilization and they will find this thread. They will immediately delete it and go looking for some tits.

#1135 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,680 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 September 2008 - 21:22

Originally posted by Buford
Some day thousands of years from now people of the master race will dig down through the rubble that was once our pathetic little tribe's civilization and they will find this thread. They will immediately delete it and go looking for some tits.


Hmmm... good idea...

I wonder if we should get a head start.

#1136 Tom Glowacki

Tom Glowacki
  • Member

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 18 September 2008 - 00:42

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


I see your points Michael.
But the answer on your question for me appears to be: For whatever reasons: No.

Had they been sorted out properly in the days of testing before then they would not have been involved in so many incidents as they were.Yes, much of that could be related with the aerodynamic package and the troubles it created.
But I can't help feeling that there are more factors involved with the spooky handling of the car other than only the aero changes. Maybe they were the same chassis as in 1963 but they were entirely different cars, not only in shape but also mechanically.

Feel free to disagree but I sincerely hope you keep on participating in this thread as you bring valuable info and opinions.

regards, henri


It was more than testing during the month of May. We have pictures in this thread of the cars testing in the fall of 1963 with the old bodywork, the Ford engine,and the new tires. Thompson had more than ample time to sort out the ride height and CG problems. The May practice pictures show that the bodywork was a work in progress, the mechanical issues should have long since been under control by May, 1964.

#1137 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:43

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

I know of the two that qualified for the race and the wrecked titanium car.
But the other two cars, what were they? "Skates" or revamped 1962 heritage "Pseudo-Coopers" ?


The 1962 Thompson cars were not "pseudo-Coopers" or Cooper copies. Or Lotus copies. They were an original design by John Crosthwaite.

#1138 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:45

Originally posted by HistoricMustang

I have been unable to produce any form of official accident investigation that should have been presented to the MacDonald family. The family is not aware of any that was presented and correct me if I am wrong, this is/was pretty standard practice.


There was no such practice in 1964.

#1139 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,731 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:12

Originally posted by McGuire


The 1962 Thompson cars were not "pseudo-Coopers" or Cooper copies. Or Lotus copies. They were an original design by John Crosthwaite.



You aer correct in all af this McGuire.
With hindsight I wished I had not tried to be "funny" by referring to the car as "Pseudo-Coopers".
Seems to fire back on me that I gave them an inapproriate name.
Allow me to put it straight. I know they were original design though I do suspect that some of the experience Crosthwaite gained at Cooper has been used in them.
And credit when credit is due: if that engine in that car had only 330 hp and Rookie Gurney still managed to qualify for the race against cars close to, if not beyond 375 hp, then the Crosthwaite designed car must have been something serious. We know Dan was/is special but even a good driver need a car of at least some capabilities in order to perform like that.

I also used the expression since they were definitely no Coopers but about the only thing that came close to them and what Indyfans in 1962 could have seen before at the speedway was the 1961 Cooper.
Sorry if I wrongfooted too many people with these thoughts and putting them to use with giving them an ill chosen nickname.

Henri

Advertisement

#1140 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:13

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


Several of us have already quoted the 1963 Ford V8 (16 valve pushrod) being some 350 pounds and the 1964 Quadcam about 400.
I checked out “Design and Development of the Indycar” by Roger Huntington: he gave similar figures.

Regrettably, still no data on the 1963 Chevrolet engines Mickey Thompson used but he described the 1962 Buick engines Mickey used as: “This engine could be readily bored and stroked to 255 CID and weighted only 280 lbs. in racing trim.” (Page 112, it also has a picture of the 1963 and the photo caption mentions it to have a small GM aluminium V8. This for they who want to verify what I write now and that is is no typo)

So the 1962 Buick engines were a mere 280 pounds!!!

Now I have admitted publicly already that I don’t know enough about the bloodlines of the different Detroit built V8 engines. So I am not certain if the Chevy “Smallblock” is directly related with the Buick or not. Since Huntington stated that the little Buick V8 had just been introduced and the “smallblock” Chevy being around since the mid-fifties I doubt if they were close related, and thus in the similar range regarding weight .



The Buick-BOP and the Chevy are totally different engines with no common features. The Buick is based on smaller architecture.

280 lbs for the Buick and 350 lbs for the Chevy are very optimistic. We can safely add 30 to 50 lbs to each figure.

#1141 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 18 September 2008 - 15:58

Originally posted by Buford
Some day thousands of years from now people of the master race will dig down through the rubble that was once our pathetic little tribe's civilization and they will find this thread. They will immediately delete it and go looking for some tits.

:lol: :up:

#1142 TrackDog

TrackDog
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 18 September 2008 - 22:23

Originally posted by Buford
Some day thousands of years from now people of the master race will dig down through the rubble that was once our pathetic little tribe's civilization and they will find this thread. They will immediately delete it and go looking for some tits.




Nope...no boobs here...


Dan

#1143 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 19 September 2008 - 01:37

Originally posted by TrackDog




Nope...no boobs here...


Dan


Unfortunately, my own are much larger than I'd like... :

#1144 JimInSoCalif

JimInSoCalif
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 19 September 2008 - 05:01

I wonder if the Buick engine that you have been talking about is the one that ended up in Australia as a racing engine - Repco I think - and later became a production engine for Rover in England.

Cheers, Jim.

#1145 antonvrs

antonvrs
  • Member

  • 489 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 19 September 2008 - 05:54

Yup.

#1146 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 19 September 2008 - 11:02

Originally posted by JimInSoCalif
I wonder if the Buick engine that you have been talking about is the one that ended up in Australia as a racing engine - Repco I think - and later became a production engine for Rover in England.

Cheers, Jim.


Bit more to the story... There were two versions of the BOP aluminum V8: Buick and Olds. They used the same block casting but different cylinder heads, pistons, valve gear, and intake manifolds. The Olds version also uses an additional row of head bolts. (On Buick versions of the block, the bosses are present but are not drilled and tapped.) The '62 Thompson cars used the Buick version of the BOP V8, while the Repco was built on the Olds version, and it was the Buick version which Rover adopted.

#1147 JimInSoCalif

JimInSoCalif
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 19 September 2008 - 15:15

Thanks for all of the information. It seems strange that there would be so many differences between different makes of the same engine, but GM used to make a lot of similar but different engines. But, as I recall GM used to make a different V8 of around 350 CI for each division until one year they were short of Oldsmobile engine and used Chevy engines instead. When Olds buyers found out they were not getting Rocket 88 engines they were far from happy and brought a class action law suit and not long after GM finally went to 'corporate engines', something Ford had always done. The early flat head Mercurys were Fords with a 1/8 longer stroke. That seemed like a really dumb engine swap as the public was sure to find out about it.

That whole BOP engine program always seemed strange to me. Now days there seems to be a lot of swapping around of platforms and engines, but my understanding is that GM developed that line of engines, with the differences you noted, and then sold the entire program. I always wondered why they no longer had a use for the engine.

I expect someone here might know. I am new here and find the collective knowledge most amazing. I think I will be around for a long time.

Cheers, Jim.

#1148 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 19 September 2008 - 15:56

While it seems very extravagant to have different versions of the same engine for the Olds and Buick divisions, at that time GM looked at it the opposite way -- in sharing block architecture they had actually effected an economy.

GM was in a far different position that it is in today. It owned 50 percent of the North American market and actively worked to keep it there to avoid anti-trust hassles. Each one of the divisions operated as an independent auto company (or tried) and the pecking order and prestige among them within the Corporation was in part established by how much unique content each could command in its product. Division execs all tried to operate each brand as its own little kingdom, which in turn determined how much power they wielded in the Corporation as a whole.

As the premium line Cadillac ruled the roost in this regard. In the '50s and '60s Cadillac would not be caught dead with anything but a real Cadillac engine in its lines, and always had its own IP and interior etc with none of the cost and material restrictions of the other divisions. Meanwhile Chevrolet maintained its product independence through its huge volume, which dwarfed the other divisions. Due to their smaller volume and margins, the other divisions -- Pontiac, Olds, Buick -- had to share platforms and components with each other, and in their low-priced lines with Chevrolet.

And if you look at the Olds and Buick versions of the BOP 215 aluminum V8, you can see that in their cylinder head and valve cover designs, they were deliberately styled to match the physical appearance of the Olds and Buick big V8s, respectively. Though they shared this engine architecture, within that constraint both divisions did all they could to maintain their individual brand identity.

Totally different structure today -- now the individual divisions are simply brands or nameplates, with brand managers and marketing departments as the extent of their operations. "Buick" has maybe 50 employees, tops.

#1149 Walter Zoomie

Walter Zoomie
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 19 September 2008 - 20:33

I've owned cars with both Chevy and Olds 350 small block engines. Back in the day, I had an Impala and a Cutlass, both motors strictly stock.

Even though both were easy to work on, I liked the Olds small block better. Loads of low-end torque, and ran like a raped ape! (The fact that SBCs were a dime a dozen made the SBO even more cooler too!)

The Olds also had a distinctive sound, which, I believe, was due to the big aluminum manifold pan gasket valley tray thing which rested in the valley between the manifold and the upper block. It looked a little something like this...

Posted Image

I think it probably helped to make the sound of the lifters, valves, and push-rods echo with a beautiful note.

One doesn't hear that sound much any more... :(

#1150 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,076 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 19 September 2008 - 20:46

Not sure if this helps.

Henry

http://www.gomog.com...ineweights.html