A 1955 Jam Handy Film touting the engine and driving power of the 1955 Chevrolet models. Original film is housed at the AACA Library & Research Center in Hershey, PA.
Also, horsepower is speed plus torque. My 1951 Chevrolet had plenty of starting torque, though not enough to spin the tires on pavement. The torque rating at 2000 rpm was just under 200 ft-lbs. The high-end horsepower limiting factors were the narrow economizer carburetor venturi, being a pushrod engine, cast iron pistons, and only having 2 valves per cylinder. An upgraded head, twin carbs and exhausts, could yield up to 150 HP, which still isn't to today's standards for a 216 cu in engine, but it's pretty decent. My '99 Saturn, with 4 valves per cylinder, yields 124 HP from a 114 cu in engine. No push rods, either.
tjlovesrachel it's a common misconception that these old cars were heavy. They were very light by today's standards. The largest and heaviest old car ever built was the 1960 Lincoln. It weighed about 5100#. My 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is smaller than a suburban, weights 5300#.
The standard automatic in a Plymouth was a two speed with an optional three speed, the Ford had a three speed and Chevrolet only had the two speed “Powerglide”. The Chevy small block was slightly smaller in displacement (265 CID) than the Ford 272 or the Plymouth 270, but it was significantly smaller and lighter. It saturated with heat better because of it’s inverted green sand casting method of production that was the true revolution of the Chevy small block. The 265 CID version used a smaller radiator than the Chevy 250 CID inline six. It was throwing away less energy than other engines. That’s the core reason it beat the other engines in fuel economy, not just that it was lighter. All cast iron automotive engines are cast that way today.
CONFIDENTIAL. This is Confidential Information for Chevrolet sales personnel only."ohhh ok, well then.....let me just stop right here..." said no one ever. lol. Everything was so wholesome back then.
"This is Jam Handy, reminding you to keep your preserves in a convenient location."
Oh would I love to have some of those ‘55 Chevy’s.
Wish I knew old cars so I could tell Who was Who here. Awesome videos
The full throttle acceleration looked like today's normal start from a stop.
Lolll yeahhh welll sorta .... but you gotta remember these cars weigh as much as a suburban does these days... with less than half the hp/torque
@@tjlovesrachel Actually they are only about 3700 lbs. They just don't make a lot of power and had three speed automatics.
Yes, my 1951 Chevrolet weighed 3120 without fluids, and had a 90 hp engine. It wasn't a heavy car.
Also, horsepower is speed plus torque. My 1951 Chevrolet had plenty of starting torque, though not enough to spin the tires on pavement. The torque rating at 2000 rpm was just under 200 ft-lbs. The high-end horsepower limiting factors were the narrow economizer carburetor venturi, being a pushrod engine, cast iron pistons, and only having 2 valves per cylinder. An upgraded head, twin carbs and exhausts, could yield up to 150 HP, which still isn't to today's standards for a 216 cu in engine, but it's pretty decent. My '99 Saturn, with 4 valves per cylinder, yields 124 HP from a 114 cu in engine. No push rods, either.
tjlovesrachel it's a common misconception that these old cars were heavy. They were very light by today's standards. The largest and heaviest old car ever built was the 1960 Lincoln. It weighed about 5100#. My 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is smaller than a suburban, weights 5300#.
The standard automatic in a Plymouth was a two speed with an optional three speed, the Ford had a three speed and Chevrolet only had the two speed “Powerglide”. The Chevy small block was slightly smaller in displacement (265 CID) than the Ford 272 or the Plymouth 270, but it was significantly smaller and lighter. It saturated with heat better because of it’s inverted green sand casting method of production that was the true revolution of the Chevy small block. The 265 CID version used a smaller radiator than the Chevy 250 CID inline six. It was throwing away less energy than other engines. That’s the core reason it beat the other engines in fuel economy, not just that it was lighter. All cast iron automotive engines are cast that way today.
Boy those 55 Chevy taillights sure are pretty!
Clearly against the Ford Victoria.
CONFIDENTIAL. This is Confidential Information for Chevrolet sales personnel only."ohhh ok, well then.....let me just stop right here..." said no one ever. lol. Everything was so wholesome back then.
Surprised he brought up fuel efficiency at the end.. Either way, very cool tests.
Fuel efficiency was irrelevant in the 50's and 60's when gasoline was plentiful and 25-35 cents a gallon.
VictrolaJazz and the epa was non existent and or consisted of 5 ppl in a basement
Bet they never compared Chevrolet fuel economy to Studebakers with Borg-Warner overdrive
The one coming up in the rear would be my ford explorer.
Upload a colorful video
Great video but the sound should have been improved .
20% total harmonic distortion