British Banger Racing

[electra225]

This activity would make an American demolition derby look like valet parking. There are allegedly two stolen cars in this banger race. A '65 Grand Prix and a 80's model Ford Station Wagon. Really too bad about the old Pontiac. Probably a nice car that got completely destroyed. I like watching banger racing just because it is so extreme. Some of these guys are lucky to be able to tell about their experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5wk2O42040

[walyfd]

Was that actually in England? Very few new American cars over there now.

[electra225]

I believe it was. They use a lot of "Yank iron" in those banger races. LOTS of Cadillac and Lincoln limosines and hearses. An old Imperial is gold. They remove the powertrains in American cars, then power them with British powertrains. The 3.8 litre Jaguar six and a four-cylinder Volvo engine is popular. I'm assuming they don't have parts to keep American engines running? I have no idea where they get the cars from the US, but you can tell they are rusty for the most part and aren't worth fixing up. Some of the collisions they have are scary. They can fold a Volvo station wagon up like a pillow case.

[Firedome]

Pre-67 Imps were still full frame and were banned from demo-derbies because nothing could touch them. When I see these destructo events I wince, just thinking what a waste. It's big sport in rural upstate NY and I've seen guys destroy a lot of solid full-size US cars.
"Shock bumper" '70s full sizers are getting rare thanks to the demo idiots.

[electra225]

I don't understand why Imperials are so tough. Chrysler was not known for robust body builds. The tinworm got to most of the Chryslers. You never see one at a car show and not many are restored, so what else are they good for? The British banger racers just beat the crusher to the old car bodies. If you take a close look at banger cars before the race, you'll see 90% of them heavily rusted. I'd be willing to wager that 90% of the Volvo sedans and wagons are in banger racing before they go to the crusher.

[walyfd]

Imperials were full-frame with a lot of the unibody features used in other chryslers so they were like tanks. True, they had rust issues but that was skin rash on an Imperial. Don't see many because there weren't many built.

I'd NEVER want to attempt that in a GM with the X frame.

[electra225]

That's probably true. The rocker panels on GM cars with "Cruciform" frames were very stout. I've always thought they were GM's answer to Chrysler's unibody construction. The shop manual for my '63 Buick shows lift points on the rocker panels, rather than on the frame.

[Firedome]

Only Olds kept the much stronger perimeter frame between the late '50s to mid '60s, Buick was the last to get rid of it with Rivieras hanging on to it longest iirc. A number of photos exist of GM cars breaking completely in half during certain kinds of accidents during the X-frame period.

Walyfyd is correct, for noise and vibration isolation reasons Imps combined both a full frame with the full-size unibody that the rest of the line adopted in 1960 resulting in great body strength. Afaik they were the only car ever banned from demo derby competition. And by '65 the rust problem had been significantly reduced from late '50s levels, mainly cosmetic with lower rear 1/4s etc, certainly no worse than GM which actually had severe frame rust problems on '65 and later big cars in some lines actually resulting in frame breakage and recalls, full size Chevy most notably.

[electra225]

Riviera used the Cruciform frame thru the 1970 models. The big Buicks got a ladder frame in 1965. "Accudrive" was the moniker, if memory serves. 1965 was the last year for the "hogs head" rear end. The first year for curved side glass, plus windshields and back glass with no rubber gasket. Wider track and about 100 pounds heavier across the line than the 1964's were. The rear suspension was better, not so wallowy.

I'd like to see them bring banger racing to the US, but we may have some kind of regulation that would prevent that. There are fluids going everywhere in banger racing. They use water tanks for cooling, but hard hits will breach that system and hot water goes all over the place. I realize banger racers use complicated and effective restraint systems, but some of the hits they take are breath taking. They routinely hit a Volvo wagon hard enough to push the rear end up under the driver's seat. They use head restraints so the driver can only see a limited amount to the sides. They get hit so hard from the back that whiplash is a major concern. Most of the injuries in banger racing involve whiplash or burns.

[Firedome]

Even better we have the 24 Hours of Lemons, wherein cheap beaters are resurrected just enough within a dollar limit to try to survive that torture enough to survive, though often self destruct in the attempt. If I were younger/richer/braver it be a blast to participate in that!

[walyfd]

The X frame did have its advantages. It WAS structurally rigid. We're basically x framed if you look at a skeleton. It was solid yet twisted a bit at the center (spine) and dissipated shock.

As an owner of the first 1957 cadillac x frame car, it sends shock from the front and back to the center which is right where the front seat is. It's momentary but a different ride. Overall very solid but I'd credit the body for a lot of that. The cowl was very reinforced. You hit a bump in front and brace for the rebound. The best seat in the car was in back because it really only hit once.

Another thing about these early x frame cars was, if you jacked them up wrong, you'd crack the windshield.

[TC Chris]

My '61 Chevy is an X-frame vehicle and I have enjoyed this discussion about that design. But nobody has told us why GM chose it or what its advantages were. Enlighten me, please.

Chris Campbell

[electra225]

I'm not sure there was ever an official reason Buick went to the Cruciform frame, starting with the 1961 models. The '61 frame was a one-year-only fitting. The '62-'64 model frames were the same. My thinking is that the X frame was an answer to Chrysler's unibody. The outer rocker panels on the GM cars was very rigid. Cowls were reinforced. There was some cowl shake on convertible jobs, but that was fairly standard in the industry. Also, Buick moved the engine forward six inches so they could lower the transmission hump. Buick changed the steering geometry with the Cruciform cars which greatly enhanced handling. The track was wider. No external engine parts will exchange between the 1961 and the 1962 Buicks. Oil pan, motor mounts, trans mount, timing cover, water pump, pulleys, radiator were all different. All the big Buicks got the same radiator whether they had AC or not starting with the 1962 models. The difference was a fan shroud and a five-blade clutch fan if the car had AC. I have seen X-frame cars in parts yards that have been hit in the side, but the frame looked to be just fine. The frames on Buick were all the same, hardtop or convertible. The convertible body had additional reinforcing. I know Chevy tinkered with wheel track and power steering arrangements starting in 1962. The 327 cars got aluminum case Powerglide and they also got "real" power steering, with the hydraulic integral with the steering box like the other GM cars. The slave cylinder lived on in Corvette until 1984. Ford Maverick slave cylinders fit perfectly and cost a third of what the Corvette part did. Saginaw recirculating ball power steering was then available on most GM cars. You do need to pay attention when you hoist a Cruciform frame car. You will bend the driveshaft on a Buick if you don;t cage the rear suspension. They recommend a drive-on lift, but provide instructions on how to cage the rear suspension so it won't drop enough to bend the driveshaft where it goes thru the rear of the "X". I've personally never done damage to such a car, but I also try to use a wheel lift when I could.

[TC Chris]

Buick still used a torque tube, right? My Chevy has a middle U-joint.

Chris Campbell

[walyfd]

Why did they go to this frame--to lower the body without sacrificing interior space.

Cadillac introduced the Eldorado Brougham show car in '55. It was well received and only like 52 inches high. So AO Smith figured out how to make a frame that'd work. No way was GM going to invest in telling Fisher to make unibodies... plus they had to at least keep up with what chrysler was about to unleash in 1957. And, if the frame didn't work out they could always go back to 1956 build specs with a full frame.

Friend took his '57 Chevy sedan to a cruise night and parked next to me. His car was about 4 inches higher and a foot shorter. And on 14 inch rims... it was clear to see how evolutionary that frame was.

[Firedome]

Chrysler adopted full unibodies in 1960 so the GM x-frame was probably not a reaction to that. Nash had had unibodies for a while but that time though, since the late 40s Airflytes?

The x-frame's main advantage was that it allowed the passenger footwells to be dropped lower, and the 14" wheels dropped the whole body even lower. One major problem was that the strengthened rocker-sills were quite rust prone thus compromising any additional safety they might have initially provided. Nader correctly addressed some of the GM x-frame issues in his '65 book, one thing he did right. Oddly as far back as '39 Buick was using a perimeter + center x frame. Olds was the only division that kept the perimeter frame with x-bracing in the center thru '60, then adopted a perimeter-ladder type frame for '61 to '64 that was very similar to the frames adopted by all divisions in '65 (except Riviera thru '70). For some reason some full-size GM '65 and later box frames were themselves very rust-prone, at least '65-69 Chevs were well known for that problem at the frame kick-up by the rear axle. Olds was also the only division to retain rear leaf-springs (on non-air-ride cars) in the late-'50s early '60s. Ford also used perimeter frames (except T-bird and Lincoln) and used it's safety advantages in their advertising.

[electra225]

I don't recall Buick having that much of a frame rust issue. Their frame orientation was somewhat different than Chevy, perhaps. Exhaust system rust was a bigger deal with Buick, with their multi-muffler systems.

Torque tubes ended with the 1960 Buick models. The 1961's were scheduled to receive the three-speed Super Turbine (TH 400) transmission. Due to the poor sales and technical woes with the 1957 to 1959 models, this was delayed until the 1964 model year. The old 1953 Dynaflow to Cadillac tooling was hastily revived and used in the 1961 thru 1963 Buicks so they could have open driveshaft Dynaflow transmissions. 1960 was also the last year for the starter on the accelerator pedal in Buick. I thought that was unfortunate. That feature was such an exclusive Buick tradition, I hated to see it leave. I believe maybe Nash had a similar system, but Buick's was unique in how it worked. There was a switch on the side of the carburetor for the starter. There was a metal ball that sat in a slot. When the engine was not running, this ball made contact with the switch. When you depressed the accelerator pedal, a tang in the carburetor moved that ball, making contact to the starter motor. When the engine started, vacuum drew that ball away from the contacts, killing the starter motor. Many of these switches were bypassed with a push button. The ball would stick, then either the starter failed to work, or it wouldn't quit cranking. You would have to open the hood, remove the air cleaner, put your hand over the throat of the carburetor so it would suck that ball off its contacts, all the while the engine was cranking merrily away. Proper Buick maintenance, noted in the shop manual, involved removing that switch, two bolts, cleaning the ball and the slot. This could be done without removing the carburetor.

[Firedome]

I think by '61 most US drivers just expected key switch start, big cars were getting more and more conformist in some respects.
I never heard of any frame issues on mid '60s Buick or Olds, but it was well reported in Chevys, my Uncle's '69 Impala convert had it in the typical rear frame location. I don't believe any GM division's intermediates had the problem, my '69 Cutlass frame is solid, but it's out of Oklahoma.

Despite the late '50s GM problems I'd love a '59 Buick flat-top 4 dr hardtop, I came close to getting a dark rose-pink metallic '59 LeSabre flat-top out of Albuquerque NM some years ago but got a '58 Chrysler Windsor hardtop from that guy instead. It went to Sweden when I was done with it. Kind wish now I'd gotten the Buick, I call that year Buick GM's version of Forward Look, just love it.

[electra225]

Grandpa had a '60 Deuce flat top. The vision in those cars was almost unlimited. No "C" pillars to look around to speak of. His was Lido Lavendar below the chrome with a black top and trunk lid above the chrome. I was not a fan of the '59 Buicks. They were horrible cars, almost as bad as the '58's although they were arguably nicer looking. The '60's were a major improvement and sales reflected that fact. Buick had so many quality control issues the 1959, 1960 and 1961 models all rode on one-year-only frames. The 1959 models mounted the master cylinder directly to the sheet metal floor boards, a disastrous decision for cars driven in road salt or on gravel roads. Bill Mitchell's cleanly styled and wildly popular 1962 models and Red Curtis being President of GM are all that saved Buick from suffering the same fate as Edsel and DeSoto in 1961.

[Firedome]

I'm all about the looks and love the '59 flat-tops just for that reason. I remember so well when our neighbor, Mr. LaForge, my friend Joey's Dad, bought a beautiful jet-black '59 Electra 4 dr flat-top and had his picture with it in the local paper as the first '59 that was delivered from Brooks Buick that Fall. New car model years were a really big deal back then!

Ironically Brooks is now Anderson Buick (my name), that started as a Chevy dealer in downtown Baltimore since the 1920s. When it was still Brooks Buick we bought a '72 Skylark 4 dr sedan w/ 38k miles from them when our daughter was born in 1977, one of the best cars we've ever owned. We drove it from MD to Montana and back in 2 weeks once, zero problems, and traded it only to get a full-size wagon (Plymouth Custom Suburban), also a great car.

https://www.andersonofhuntvalley.com