My parents 1965 Olds 98 had the 7L V8. It easily handled well over 90 mph when needed.
But the Rocket Engine in the 1956 Olds 88 actually had better, faster acceleration… and also easily handled 90+ mph.
Sorry, but I read so many publications that I can’t remember the source. They did not say it was a Pontiac engine but a GMC truck engine. They did not say it was Chevy big block based, but from the displacement I knew it was.
I drove some GMC and Chevy class 6 and 7 trucks with the GMC 366 and also the Ford 361. I had a steady city tractor , a C850 Cabover with a ford 534 gas engine, a 5 speed transmission and a 2 speed rear end. I could creep up alongside the Greyhound Buses in 5th low and put in 5th high and walk away from them. They would run about 72. It was not lack of speed that killed the gas engine trucks, it was fuel mileage. I got about 4 mpg. A 250 hp Cummins got 6 to 7. We had a few GMC V12 gas engine road tractors that has so little low rpm torque that it was difficult to start out with a heavy load without stalling. It may also could have been the incredibly stiff clutch springs.
If I come across that article again I will note it and let you know.
1 Like
There were two big variables besides the engine, the older one weighed about 800 lbs less and also had a 4 speed automatic with an ultra-low first gear for fast breakaway. The 65 had a 3 speed automatic.
Yes, 3-speed automatic with the shift lever on the steering column.
A very nice car for its time with a very soft ride. And the trunk could hold four sets of golf clubs and pull carts.
That said, I wouldn’t trade my 2014 Camry for that 1965 land yacht as a daily driver. Not only is the Camry a far safer vehicle with about 3x better gas mileage its steering and suspension are so much better for driving control.
The one thing I truly miss is the, for me, far better comfort of a good bench seat. Even the split bench in my 2007 Impala was more comfortable than any bucket seat, no matter how the seat is adjusted.
But on balance, I wouldn’t go back to any of my or my late parents cars of yesteryears. My current buggy has been so very reliable the almost seven years I’ve had it, a quite refreshing change from past cars I’ve had.
It’s interesting. A year or two ago, I found a 1957 Chrysler 300 C on Hemmings which was a car I remembered fondly from my youth. This one was fully restored, and very expensive ($100K). I was smitten, so I took a flight from Philadelphia to LA to see if I could go back in time. I got off the plane, took a taxi to the owner’s home, and there was this menacing black beauty gleaming in the sunlight. I got in and started it up. The big Hemi fired up quickly and idled smoothly. The seats were not as comfy as I remembered, the ride was rougher and noisier than I remembered, and it was much more difficult to get that awesome power to the ground without spinning the wheels than I remembered. Ike was not back in the White House, and I was still an old man. And yet today, when I drive my 62 Caddy, it still puts a smile on my face.
"Marnet,
The one thing I truly miss is the, for me, far better comfort of a good bench seat. Even the split bench in my 2007 Impala was more comfortable than any bucket seat, no matter how the seat is adjusted.
I had a lady tell me her thought’s on what was wrong with bucket seat’s (her word’s) the seats are all the same but everyone’s bucket is a different size and fit.
1 Like
Well I certainly don’t want a bench seat . The Recaro type bucket seats in our Volvo are comfortable and supportive for long driving periods. Even the ones in our 2018 Ford Fiesta are good.
My ‘83 GTI’s Recaro type seats were way more comfortable than the bench in my ‘72 Duster. But I am surprised at how many seats aren’t comfortable.
I think I drove something similar, seemed like I was going off both sides of the road at the same time, not sure about the model.
LOL That is so true.
I do wonder at times if my real problem with seats is my arthritis which continues to worsen as I age. I can well believe that I’d find those bench seats from 30 to 50 years ago not nearly as comfy now as I remember them. 
Going off on a tangent…
In 45 years of driving I’ve found it interesting the differences in ease or difficulty of parallel parking various vehicles.
The econobox '73 Corolla, of course, was easy to slip into a spot. I could create parking spaces for it, it was so small to other cars of the time.
That big land yacht '65 Olds was surprisingly easy to parallel park, truly easy, despite its size.
I have noticed that RWD vehicles have been easier than some FWD to back into a slot by the curb. Some FWD cars are easier to pull forward into parallel parking than to back into. It just takes getting used to each car’s handling.
"Marnet, I can well believe that I’d find those bench seats from 30 to 50 years ago not nearly as comfy now as I remember them. 
I don’t know about arthritis as I don’t have it but both of my truck’s have bench seat’s that I find very comfortable my wife’s car has a split bench that is also comfortable tp me.
1 Like
Speaking of tangents, do you remember the rear seat clock in the LS? It was not available in the base 98, but standard in the LS. I thought it was the height of luxury at that time.
@old_mopar_guy Ours had a rear seat lighted vanity mirror rather than a clock in the rear. A wood veneer cover pulled down revealing the mirror and activating the lights on both sides. The mirror had hinges that let the lighted mirror tilt out at the bottom so back seat users could easily use it.
There also were pull down center armrests front and back. The rear seat armrest was perfect for holding the traveling pegboard chess set my brother and I used on long trips. 
I agree it is likely car buyers in general are more safety conscious than they were 50 years ago. That could be in part that the population is older. When we’re 50+ we’re more aware of the reality that “that COULD have been me or my spouse in that crushed car being towed off the road.” When we’re twenty, we (especially guys IMO) tend to think we’re so effing good at driving … and just generally think we’re immortal that we’re less likely to weight crash survivability or safety into a car purchase, etc. The other factors driving the new “safety does sell” paradigm may be that (a) the auto industry has stopped subtly undermining it (is not as likely to fight government initiatives to require more safety factors as it was 50 years ago) and (b) over time enough photos of people surviving horrendous crashes clearly because of airbags have eaten away at the old perception of them as expensive government mandated bondoggles. In 50 years there are are large number of people who have either personal experience of the benefit of a harness, airbag, antilock brakes, or backup camera … or know someone who has that experience… to get the message out that these things are relevant.
Yes, but… all of the guys whom I know who fail to use their seatbelts are in their “senior” years.
I have actually heard some older guys state that they “prefer to be thrown-clear” from a car wreck, rather than be “trapped” inside. Obviously, they live in a world where the roadsides are covered with Tempurpedic mattresses and marshmallow fluff, and where there are no metal guardrails, broken glass, or speeding vehicles that could run them over after being “thrown clear”.
1 Like
Well I’m going to disagree. I don’t remember exactly when it started to happen, (20 years, 30 years ago) but there was a decided shift to safe and secure being a main issue. It wasn’t the older folks, it was the younger ones. Older people grew up spending their days in the woods or on the playground without constant supervision, rode bikes without helmets, went hunting, and so on.
At a recent lecture on the virus and the issues, ( not to start that again) one of the points covered was the “risk averse” nature of the population and expectation of the government to protect them and keep them safe regardless of the facts. So the gov reacts with lame measures trying to make people feel safe, like trying to stop a tornado, but the sheep buy it.
Well, I’m going to disagree with you, @bing. Automotive safety is partly about what individuals want, but IMO so few people declare their interests to the automakers that it has to be something else. That something else is the insurance companies. They are behind most, if not all, the safety related changes to cars. Individuals decide they like them or not after the safety features are deployed.
Don’t kids these days in rural areas go hunting? I imagine they do. My son in law is under 30 and has been hunting on and near his grandmother’s farm for 20 years. Teens in my area don’t hunt, unless they want to end up in jail. It isn’t allowed in even moderate density suburbs due to the danger. The state park behind my house has one or two deer hunts a year. All are bow hunters and have to prove to the Department of Natural Resources that they are skilled enough to know how to avoid shooting up the neighborhoods. Arrows don’t go nearly as far as bullets do, of course.
I bet those tens of thousands of “sheep” alive today thanks to car safety regulations might disagree…
5 Likes
Every single safety feature in vehicles today came out of intense lobbying from the Insurance industry. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Government wanting protect the populist. Seatbelts, Anti-lock Brakes, Crumple Safety Zones, Air-bags…All came from intense lobbying from the insurance industry. It has everything to do with improving the bottom line of the insurance industry. In this case it’s actually a good thing.
And not just cars…but homes. All your fire and electrical codes come directly from the insurance industry.
2 Likes