You're on the Test Track - Original Chrysler Training Film from '57. Chrysler & Imperial battle it out with Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac. Visit us at: www.carsandstripes.com
You might think the engines were the secret to the acceleration wins, but it was actually the torqueFlight transmission. likewise, you might think the torsion bar suspension was a big advantage, and it was, with the much lower unsprung weight, and anti-dive geometry, but the real advantage was the asymmetrical rear springs, and the 80/20 up lock Oriflow shocks . The non-servo "Total Contact" (floating shoe) drum brakes were also much easier to control, and keep the car straight, in a panic stop. this was real engineering, and these were the days when there was really a huge difference from manufacturer to manufacturer.
I own a 1957 Chrysler New Yorker 4 door hard top 392 Hemi power windows power bench seat air conditioning.. originally 80,000 miles,all in mint condition..It drives very good in Hawaii!! I love my classic..
Amazing how the factory sponsoring these comparison films has their product come out on top, all the time. Best steering, acceleration, braking, suspension, handling, everything. That is really a fair comparison, by golly.
These old tanks are dreamboats today, but back in their day they handled awfully! They swilled premium gas like hugry beasts! And I'd love to own one today, they were wonderful vehicles!!
If you drove those cars sensibly they were fine. People have been driving kiddy cars so long now they wouldn't know how to drive a REAL CAR. If gas was $.25 cents per gallon why not?
I can Explain the No Squat, No Dive on my 68 Dodge Dart, but it's easier to just let my Car buddies take a ride.. we have a street crossing here in Huntington Beach Ca.. that's super uneven, lumps a plenty road raises up and drops down about 5ft.. going 50mph plus my buddy was shocked "No pun" he's a off road truck guy, how my Dart didn't do anything other then drive over it.. no bottoming out no crunch no drama.. Torsion Aire Ride for me thanks..
OK, I will admit to something here. I have driven 2 cars that had torsion bar suspension, a 67 Plymouth wagon and an 84 Seville. The wagon had rear leaf springs and the Seville had coil springs. But each car, driven over railroad tracks at speed, would rebound quickly. For me, if I was an auto engineer, all my designs would feature torsion front and rear leaf springs. 4 wheel coil springs may offer a boulevard ride, but for better handling and control, I prefer the torsion/leaf set up.
For years Chrysler used the torsion/leaf setup.Buick favored coils all around (this spread across GM line) Sinse underneath the 80-85 Cadillac Seville are 79-85 Buick Riviera innards,may serve to explain this setup. Over all torsion/leaf setup is superior in terms of handling. (and I'm actually a GM guy!)
+WAQWBrentwood all is a question of tuning, coils and torsion bars have about the same properties. the leaf spring advantage is that when the diff winds, it is jacking the rear of the car to counterraact the rear diving on an heavy acceleration. the chrysler products were aimed toward a stiff suspension that promotes stability, GM were aimed toward a soft plush ride that compromized stability
Most people back then wanted a soft, cushy ride and if that meant crossing railroad crossings a bit slower, that was okay with them. Very few people liked the firmness of the torsion air ride.
Imperial's styling I can take or leave but New Yorker's I'd take over GM or Ford in 1957. The Fury (In white and working fuel injection) and 300C would be my preference for cars with Thunderbird also being thrown in from '57
@@eugenepiurkowski6026 I think, though, that GM with all their brands was a bigger target. They might have needed another test film to cover Pontiac and Chevy. Remember Ford only had Ford, Merc and Lincoln in '57.
Love watching these old, biased training films. Most of these results can be manipulated by an experienced driver who can hit the throttle or brake to give a certain result, usually in the Chrysler’s favour.
If you notice when the Oldsmobile and the Windsor are pulling up the hill the Oldsmobile actually starts to pull up the hill faster than the windsor and then the driver of the oldes let's off the gas.
@@eugenepiurkowski6026 you can tell because the rear lifts and the front drops. When hauling up a hill a car with soft suspension will stay squatted untill you let of the gas.
Official 0-60 times 1957 Cadillac coupe de ville ( 10.6s ) 1957 imperial ( 9.4s ) 1957 Chrysler New Yorker ( 8.3s) - 1957 Buick super ( 10.6s ) 1957 Oldsmobile 98 ( 9.9s ) 1957 Chrysler Saratoga ( 8.8s) - 1957 buick century ( 10.3s) 1957 Oldsmobile super 88 ( 9.3) 1957 Chrysler Windsor ( 8.7s )
Notice how the comparison test compares performance only. It does not address the fact of mechanical reliability. By analogy, there was a piece of high tech equipment on my job that was highly desirable because it outperformed every other type of its kind. However, everyone eventually was ready to get rid of it because it performed better only when it had brand new accessories and had no mechanical problems. And the routine replacement of very expensive items such as cords, tips, etc. made it UNdesirabe.
…. yeah and notice how on the curves test the Chrysler products have their brake lights unplug but the GM's don't. So you don't see when the Chrysler products brake going into the turn where they are having the GM's going straight into the curve then breaking late past the apex.Also note on the slam dunk all out break test the 57 Buick do not dive at all but the driver's seem to curtain tail the car to a stop. One would at least see some front end dive upon breaking but here you do not. I have owned both the 57 Chrysler products and the 57 Buicks. One thing is a fact. The ride on the Chryslers are hard and tinny felling and the solid lifter noise from the engine is noticeable. The Buick offers a ride like you are watching T.V. on big comfy couch. There are places where they speed and slow down the film when showing solo shots doing various feats so one cannot see what is what. Overall, a neat watch however.
18 seconds ? Iknow you're joking but those cars were extremely quick for its day , Chryslers where very fast it's probably the only real "test" they did in this video 8.5 seconds and under be expecting from those cars you can even justify that from the video time where it starts and they flash the lights or look up the specs .. and if it was the Chrysler 300c letter performance model in 57 manuals did it in 6.9 seconds autos deep 7.9-8s , they were un touchable in acceleration , through out the mid 50s and early 60s.. still fast by today's standards.
@@dontjivewitha5559 Obviously I was joking, and I do keep things in historical context, which is why I was surprised they didn't mention at least 0-60 times given what you state. For example, there are a ton of videos on RU-vid of GM's 'safe' bumper design of the 1970s, but the tests are rigged as no car is show impacting a barrier more than 3 mph . . . for a reason.
There's another test-track video where the Cadillac follows the Imperial over a bunch of speed bumps and the Cadillac's rear shocks actually break, the trunk & rear doors start flapping open, funny to watch it disintegrating. Wish I could find that video again.
That video is the one where Tom McCahill tested the cars for Chrysler. Yes, that Cadillac’s rear door and trunk flew open and the Buick’s back air suspension tore loose. That video is here on RU-vid...I’ve watched it twice over the years.
3:20 It's implausible to me that the Saratoga can accelerate to sixty in seven seconds, only a second slower than my Porsche 928S or the same as my BMW I3.
What's the point of racing a New Yorker and an Imperial ? They're virtually the same car with New Yorker weighing less so it will be faster for sure. And is anyone surprised that Cadillac was slowest
Would have love to talk with the drivers after and see what car they actually preferred 😂 , guarantee if you watched caddies version they will slaughter the mopars of visa versa with GM , but one thing that is real is the 0-60s these Chrysler were extremely quick nothing could beat them in the mid 50s to early 60s as in land yatchs , 8.5s for the standard ones is rapid in the 50s , and the letter car versions could do 6.9s manual 8-flat auto in 57 300c
All you have to do is take a look at how well Imperial did in the High School confidential's hot rod race to know how great Imperial's handling is...go ahead its on You Tube take a look. That the final proof positive how great a car Imperial was....
Too bad Chrysler didn't have the boulevard ride. Also filmmakers hired to sell dealers on the '58 must have had their work cut out for them because the 57's had such piss-purr quality.
@@paularnold2108 Outselling doesn't necessarily mean better. That said, of course this film is biased, and I agree with the original comment. I'm mainly skeptical about the ride of the Chryslers - more stable, but is it still as soft? The fact Ford isn't included also makes you wonder.
These cars look like contemporary refrigerators and washing machines. And having typed that and thought about it, I think the trend continues...any thoughts?
Back then cars were not built as a little tin can but were comfortable and HEAVY. Two things I dearly HATE about newer cars: Seat belts and "anti lock" brakes. Over 60 years I find them truly aggravating and DANGEROUS.
Define "death trap". Google defines it as "a place, structure, or vehicle that is potentially very dangerous" Which basically means all cars are dangerous.
@@LearnAboutFlow "Potentially dangerous" Any car can be used to kill somebody including modern cars, you can still die in a car accident in a modern car just drive like an idiot, all cars have the potential to be dangerous.
@@Aman-fv5if Yes, just ignore the fact auto deaths have dramatically declined since the introduction of modern safety equipment. And that's before we start talking about how leaded gas, another wonder of this era, was the primary cause of higher crime rates. A little research goes a long way.
surely the public were not that gullible way back then 61 years ago? If all cars are level how can one car be faster than the others? Ah but it's comedy isn't it?
You know, none of these U.S. autos could have been sold in large numbers in Europe....too large, too much fuel needed, spare parts too costly, little or no dealer presence. All these aimed ONLY at the U.S. market. Then imports invade U.S. market... with small cars, low fuel intake, loads of parts at many dealer outlets. Oh yes...high workmanship and high resell value (no musicians needed).
Bullshit testing, looks like the test drivers lock up the GM cars and don't correct the steering to keep straight, I'm sure they are all good cars, but notice how they don't test for ride quality. I bet you could order a heavier suspension on at least some of those GM cars if your goal was to go to a race track.
