Archive: "Ropedrive" Transaxle Pontiac Tempest 1961-1963

[vwlarry]

There was a request for more information on this car, and I thought that it might be interesting for others, too. The first Tempests were technically rather daring cars, albeit flawed, but that's what makes many other "cult cars" what they are. At the end of this long, but very thorough, article, the author mentions the Porsche 924 and 928, which were very likely the recipients of inspiration from these Pontiacs of years earlier, due to their very similar-in-concept "bent" driveshaft in a tube and transaxle design. A neighborhood buddy of mine had a "rope drive" '63 Tempest with the "V8 sawed in half" 4-cylinder and 3-on-the-floor, and it was a lot of fun to drive, with handling that was definitely "unusual". Keep in mind too, that these Tempests were mildly related to the Chevrolet Corvair, and shared certain structures, including the floorpan, which is amazing considering their very different layouts. The article also sheds light on the bold and talented people who were involved in this project, like Pete Estes, and the GM big guy everybody knows about, John Z. DeLorean. Enjoy!











Modified by vwlarry at 6:01 PM 9-12-2009

[HerrGolf]

Thanks for this. A nice, long article, to be sure. It'd be nice if there were such detailed info about the engineering of more cars I encounter, both the interesting or mundane.
I initially read about this car because of the famous courtroom scene in My Cousin Vinny. I figured it was written by screenwriters who didn't know their cars. I wondered on which planet a Pontiac in 1963 would've had an LSD and IRS. Born in 1983, the era in which American marques possessed engineering distinction was long over by the time I took an active and informed interest in cars. And of course, when I saw that movie, I had no idea of the four cylinder, its unique mounting and the torque tube. Truly, even by today's standards, this is an innovative and ingenious design. Add some balance shafts and a multi-link rear axle and... well it's certainly a nice thought, isn't it?
What continues to be very interesting to me is the degree to which automakers would update their designs each year. In 1964, the GM compacts (not the Corvair) would move to the A-platform, with no 4-cyl, a BOF chassis and live axle with a hotchkiss drive shaft. That didn't stop GM from enlarging the Y-body for 1963 and introducing pillar-less designs for the Olds and Buick divisions' variants, as this article explains. Coupled with the fact that each division had its own engineering department, one can only imagine the R&D outlay GM spent. The fact that they were profitable in spite of this speaks to how large their market share was. It's all so different from the automotive scene I've encountered in my 26 years.

[Corbic]

Quote, originally posted by HerrGolf »

Thanks for this. A nice, long article, to be sure. It'd be nice if there were such detailed info about the engineering of more cars I encounter, both the interesting or mundane. I initially read about this car because of the famous courtroom scene in My Cousin Vinny. I figured it was written by screenwriters who didn't know their cars. I wondered on which planet a Pontiac in 1963 would've had an LSD and IRS. Born in 1983, the era in which American marques possessed engineering distinction was long over by the time I took an active and informed interest in cars. And of course, when I saw that movie, I had no idea of the four cylinder, its unique mounting and the torque tube. Truly, even by today's standards, this is an innovative and ingenious design. Add some balance shafts and a multi-link rear axle and... well it's certainly a nice thought, isn't it? What continues to be very interesting to me is the degree to which automakers would update their designs each year. In 1964, the GM compacts (not the Corvair) would move to the A-platform, with no 4-cyl, a BOF chassis and live axle with a hotchkiss drive shaft. That didn't stop GM from enlarging the Y-body for 1963 and introducing pillar-less designs for the Olds and Buick divisions' variants, as this article explains. Coupled with the fact that each division had its own engineering department, one can only imagine the R&D outlay GM spent. The fact that they were profitable in spite of this speaks to how large their market share was. It's all so different from the automotive scene I've encountered in my 26 years.

Exactly, back then you often saw radical change every 3 years, today, your lucking to get a face life every 6, and most power trains carry over into the next generation every 8 years.

[HerrGolf]

Quote, originally posted by Corbic »

Exactly, back then you often saw radical change every 3 years, today, your lucking to get a face life every 6, and most power trains carry over into the next generation every 8 years.

Honestly, I can't say I mind very much. I often prefer when cars go through continuous improvement like the VW Beetle/Super Beetle or SAAB 99/900. No need to "innovate" when none is needed; these days, I find it's often an opportunity for manufacturers to cheapen a product line and disguise it with new styling. One example: the current Corolla (a car Toyota would be wise to keep fiercely competitive). Not to add too much to TCL Toyota bashing, though; many carmakers are guilty of this.

[BRealistic]

Quote, originally posted by Corbic »

Exactly, back then you often saw radical change every 3 years, today, your lucking to get a face life every 6, and most power trains carry over into the next generation every 8 years.

They used to soap up the dealership windows when the new year models came out- and people would flock to the dealers to get inside and see the "all new for 195X" models.
My grandfather has some old domestic service manuals in his basement- from the 50s and 60s. I was surprised that they break out each model by year because of all the changes made.
OTOH- vehicle technology, design and buyer expectations were changing rapidly during that time in automotive history.

[Djibril]

Quote, originally posted by BRealistic »

My grandfather has some old domestic service manuals in his basement- from the 50s and 60s. I was surprised that they break out each model by year because of all the changes made.

That must have been a right pain for service departments.

[randyvr6]

Quote, originally posted by Djibril »

That must have been a right pain for service departments.

Keep in mind that most manufacturers only had a couple distinct models and also that cars were a lot simpler than they are now.

[vwlarry]

That is a good point. In the early sixties, for example, Pontiac had only the full-sized lineup, which was all a variation on a theme, with Catalina, Star Chief, Ventura, and Bonneville going from low to high-zoot. Then there was the new Tempest, and that was it. The differences were far less technoid, as in today's cars, and much more nuts-und-bolts and trim-related. It really was a simpler task to keep track of all the information back then than it is now.

[HerrGolf]

What was the Pontiac division's theme/target audience back then?

[vwlarry]

Quote, originally posted by HerrGolf »

What was the Pontiac division's theme/target audience back then?

Easy. The term "yuppie" was 2 decades into the future, but that's who PMD was aiming for in the 1960s. Do you ever watch "Madmen" on AMC? Yeah, those guys.
...and you know something? Back then, year after year, that target they were aiming for? Bull's eye, every year, year after year. Pontiac was the BMW of the 1960s. [IMG]http://*****************.com/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]


Modified by vwlarry at 10:29 PM 9-13-2009

[Seitan]

Quote, originally posted by BRealistic »

They used to soap up the dealership windows when the new year models came out- and people would flock to the dealers to get inside and see the "all new for 195X" models. My grandfather has some old domestic service manuals in his basement- from the 50s and 60s. I was surprised that they break out each model by year because of all the changes made. OTOH- vehicle technology, design and buyer expectations were changing rapidly during that time in automotive history.

When I bought my service manual for the Apache I had to get an addendum just for the model year I have. It's not nearly as thick but still has quite a few changes.

[HerrGolf]

Quote, originally posted by vwlarry »

Easy. The term "yuppie" was 2 decades into the future, but that's who PMD was aiming for in the 1960s. Do you ever watch "Madmen" on AMC? Yeah, those guys. ...and you know something? Back then, year after year, that target they were aiming for? Bull's eye, every year, year after year. Pontiac was the BMW of the 1960s. [IMG]http://*****************.com/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG] Modified by vwlarry at 10:29 PM 9-13-2009

I can't wrap my head around that AT ALL...
Who bought Oldses and Buicks? Mercurys and Chryslers?

[BRealistic]

Quote, originally posted by HerrGolf »

I can't wrap my head around that AT ALL... Who bought Oldses and Buicks? Mercurys and Chryslers?

The only constant is change.
You are mistakenly assuming the world has always been like it has as long as you have bothered to notice.
In the 50s/60s you bought a Lincoln, Chrysler or Cadillac because they were the best readily available cars you could buy.
Buick, Oldsmobile, Mercury- those were"affordable luxury" cars. Some were even sport luxury.

[vwlarry]

Quote, originally posted by HerrGolf »

I can't wrap my head around that AT ALL... Who bought Oldses and Buicks? Mercurys and Chryslers?

Easy again. In one way or another, Olds, Buick, Mercury, and even Chrysler were all essentially aiming at Pontiac. When it came to setting the pace in style, performance, and desirability in the affordable upmarket class of that time, Pontiac was leading the way, hands-down. They literally went from strength to strength, year after year, from about 1959, when Pontiac really "broke out" until about the 1970 model year, when the bloom went off the rose, and they began their decline. No kidding, if you wanted a REALLY cool car in the 1960s, and didn't want a Ford or Chevy or one of the other "low-priced" models, it almost HAD to be a Pontiac. The others were also-rans.

[vwlarry]

Do you know who can be credited with about 90% of Pontiac's fantastic success in the 1960s? John Z. DeLorean, that's who. He was, along with Lee Iacocca, perhaps the most perceptive and sure-footed marketing guru of the decade, at least within the Big 3 makers. John Z. had the Midas touch back then. The funny thing about DeLorean, though, was that he was formally educated as an engineer, and not a marketing guy, like Iacocca was at Ford. He just had a natural talent for taking the pulse of the public and guiding Pontiac to the exact correct response, at precisely the right time.


Modified by vwlarry at 11:06 PM 9-13-2009

[BRealistic]

Quote, originally posted by vwlarry »

Easy again. In one way or another, Olds, Buick, Mercury, and even Chrysler were all essentially aiming at Pontiac. When it came to setting the pace in style, performance, and desirability in the affordable upmarket class of that time, Pontiac was leading the way, hands-down. They literally went from strength to strength, year after year, from about 1959, when Pontiac really "broke out" until about the 1970 model year, when the bloom went off the rose, and they began their decline. No kidding, if you wanted a REALLY cool car in the 1960s, and didn't want a Ford or Chevy or one of the other "low-priced" models, it almost HAD to be a Pontiac. The others were also-rans.

Well, Pontiac did coin themselves as the excitement division first. But when I talk with people in my family about cars they had in the past, I never hear about Pontiac being do great. But the again- most average people seemed to be more brand loyal back then.

[vwlarry]

Quote, originally posted by BRealistic »

Well, Pontiac did coin themselves as the excitement division first. But when I talk with people in my family about cars they had in the past, I never hear about Pontiac being do great. But the again- most average people seemed to be more brand loyal back then.

That's exactly it. Brand-loyalty was the "natural state" back in those years. When is the last time you heard anyone calling themselves a "Ford man", or a "VW man", or a "BMW woman" lately? When I was a kid back then, one of the first things you learned about men, especially, was their automotive loyalty. Guys were right upfront about it, and they meant it, too.

[nm+]

You sure you're not posting about the 1964 Buick Skylark?

[vwlarry]

Quote, originally posted by nm+ »

You sure you're not posting about the 1964 Buick Skylark?

What makes you ask that?

[BRealistic]

Quote, originally posted by vwlarry »

That's exactly it. Brand-loyalty was the "natural state" back in those years. When is the last time you heard anyone calling themselves a "Ford man", or a "VW man", or a "BMW woman" lately? When I was a kid back then, one of the first things you learned about men, especially, was their automotive loyalty. Guys were right upfront about it, and they meant it, too.

There's a funny story about that....
I asked my maternal grandfather once what he originally thought of my dad when they first met. He said "Well, he seemed like a nice clean cut guy. But I didn't trust him because he didn't drive a Ford."



Modified by BRealistic at 11:16 PM 9/13/2009

[Wellington P Funk]

I just feel the Tempest Coupe, at the bottom of this page, needs to be viewed again for its sheer beauty. It looks very American, but with a lithe, lightweight, all muscles-and-sinew look that nothing else I know of from the early 60's had. Beautiful.

Quote, originally posted by vwlarry »

[vwlarry]

Quote, originally posted by Wellington P Funk »

I just feel the Tempest Coupe, at the bottom of this page, needs to be viewed again for its sheer beauty. It looks very American, but with a lithe, lightweight, all muscles-and-sinew look that nothing else I know of from the early 60's had. Beautiful.

Chalk it all up to the deft touch of William Mitchell. He was hands-down the most influential automotive designer of the post-WWII era, bar none, and during his primetime years at GM, in the 1960s, he guided his teams of talented subordinates to create some of the most evocative and truly beautiful "consumer products" ever made, IMO. Look also at the Tempest sedan, with its bright, airy greenhouse that allowed complete range of vision in all directions, and also gave the occupants a feeling of spaciousness as a side-benefit. Typical Mitchell thoughtfulness, along with a sense of real style, and being able to combine both harmoniously. I would love to see someone write a really in-depth biography/career examination of Bill Mitchell. The guy was a real giant in this industry, and his influence is still to be felt in studios around the world.

[G-rocco]

Quote, originally posted by nm+ »

You sure you're not posting about the 1964 Buick Skylark?

Michelin model XGV-75R14?
it's a 'My Cousin Vinny' reference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...lated

[vwlarry]

OIC.

[G-rocco]

Larry, back in the Heyday of GM, each car had a certain reputation, or market.
Something like...
Cadiliac = luxury
Buick = understated luxury - the doctors car - when you wanted nice but not a flashy caddy.
Pontiac - the sporty car
Chevy - the bread-n-butter, blue collar car
Where did that leave oldsmobile?