Based on the weight and HP numbers provided in the video, the weight/HP ratio for the Buick is significantly higher than for the low-priced 3! Also, I had to chuckle when they were touting that the Buick with Dynaflow transmission would be operating in its economy range for certain driving conditions. My father bought a new 1956 Buick Century, which I later inherited when I started driving and he bought a 1968 Chrysler Newport. The 1956 Buick Century got about 5 MPG in city/suburban driving and about 7 MPG in highway driving with the Dynaflow transmission. We must have never entered the economy range! The only saving grace was that gas was less than 30 cents/gallon in those days.
DynaFlop equipped cars always used lots of gas, unless you were on a level highway with light enough traffic that you hardly ever had to adjust your speed. DynaFlow was smooth, but efficient it was not. And I am a Buick lover.
My ‘55 Special gets 11 mpg local on E10 87 Octane gas. Before E10 13/16 local/interstate. I use the same gas pump to fill and divide miles by gallons. The bump from 264ci to 322 should not of halved your mpg as no e10 was available then and the ‘56 had a new stator in the Dynaslow to help “acceleration”. The nature of the transmission must of caused a lot of pedal mashing kicking in the Century’s secondaries and cutting mpg.
My '58 Buick was such a gas hog that I left it parked except for the most necessary trips. It doesn't help that I owned it after the first oil crisis. Whenever I see a 58 Buick, I can't help but still hate the car.
Buicks USP: It's bigger and heavier... 😁. I bet when the salesman talked about the more powerful engine he didn't mention that the extra power was needed to lug around the extra weight. Meanwhile the Ford guy is telling his prospect that the lower weight Ford is more efficient 😂
eh they were all touting longer lower wider(like Jay Leno loves to quote)... and that meant bigger... big cars were king... Caddy, Imperial, Lincoln... Chevy was the lightest but i don't think made any mention of it. I don't think Ford mentioned their lower weight either. This is pretty rare for a maker to go "our car is a pig" because people were VERY aware of gas mileage.
My best friend dad had the 1956 Buick Century when it was new. I still recall the colors. Canary Yellow and Cream White. What a beauty Back when I parking lot looked like a field of a Easter Eggs.
that is a huge advantage, the more similar they are, the more parts can interchange, which makes them cheaper and more readily available, and superior since the engineering can be amortized over more vehicles making them less costly. it is a huge benefit to the consumer. a cadillac or buick having same parts as a chevrolet actually benefits the buyer of all three vehicles. and as vehicles age, common available parts makes them far easier and cheaper to keep on the road, not to mention more convenient.
@@carryclass6807 make perfect sense from the accounting point of view... Chrysler had the same issue with Desoto.. since it was essentially the same vehicles but Desoto wanted their own slight differences... ended up killing them off. funny how in 57 makes had different engine sizes.
I just saw a Ford training film strip in which a number of the Buick advantages in this film strip were described as disadvantages. Like the torque tube versus Hotchkiss drive.
By the mid 50s torque tube drive was only used by Buick and AMC/Nash. The reason why- high unsprung weight. Chrysler products had never used it. Ford products moved away from it in 1949.
Strange as it sounds, Buick was the third best-selling car in America from 1954 through 1956! Plus, the Buick Special was the least-expensive model in the series, while the cars compared (Bel Air, Fairlane and Belvedere) were the top-of-the-line models
Fun to watch, but the Ford's wheelbase in 54 - 56 was 115.5 inches. The 52 and 53 had a 115 inch wheelbase. Also, the 56 Ford could be had with a 312 V8. The 272 was the top engine in EARLY 55.
The dynaflow soaks up that extra HP, not the weight. But 255 horse, 340 ft-lb means a seriously special engine by 1956 standards. Dodge's Hemi didn't make anywhere near that in '56. Besides, nowadays any of these cars will get blown away by any crappy Honda.. I'd have the Buick for the novelty of it.
@@tubbs2132 But the crappy Honda doesn't have the torque, and can't pull a trailer. The Buick, and most any other American car could pull a trailer in stride.
@@michaelbenardo5695 The Honda won't draw attention either.. plenty of things the Buick does better. But I don't see the point in comparing power-to-weight ratios in these cars. Choose which you like, they're all cool.
The video is right the Buick was a way better quality car than a Chevrolet. In 1981 I had a '56 Buick Special Convertible in mint condition. I also had a '57 Chevrolet Bel Air 2 dr. hardtop in very nice condition. The Buick had a much better smoother ride than the Chevrolet. The special was the cheap model & the bel air was the deluxe model. In 1978 My dad bought me a '57 Chevy Bel Air 4 dr. Hardtop after I wrecked my first car a '59 Chevrolet 2 dr. Impala in 1977. My dad said the '57 was like driving a truck I asked if his '57 Chevy he bought new felt the same way. He said no you didn't think about it then because that was the style. Chevrolet produced over 166,000 '57 Bel Air 2 dr. Sport Coupes but Buick only produced 9,700 56 Special Convertibles.
@@autochronicles8667 And I think you could have gotten the Thunderbird 312 in any trim level standard Ford. The Buick ad claimed maximum engine size was the 272 Y-Block.
I sell Buicks, next time I sell an Enclave to a 70 year old im using the weight and prestige value shtick with the "danger zone" and see if it still works.
I agree with the lower longer wider school of thought. The lower center of gravity is important. All the cars today are top heavy - that’s why they flip over so easily in an accident.
The 56 Oldsmobile had the best transmission- the Hydramatic. Buick should have used it for increased gas mileage with the built in overdrive and the lower gears to accelerate.
Авто/Мото
Based on the weight and HP numbers provided in the video, the weight/HP ratio for the Buick is significantly higher than for the low-priced 3! Also, I had to chuckle when they were touting that the Buick with Dynaflow transmission would be operating in its economy range for certain driving conditions. My father bought a new 1956 Buick Century, which I later inherited when I started driving and he bought a 1968 Chrysler Newport. The 1956 Buick Century got about 5 MPG in city/suburban driving and about 7 MPG in highway driving with the Dynaflow transmission. We must have never entered the economy range! The only saving grace was that gas was less than 30 cents/gallon in those days.
DynaFlop equipped cars always used lots of gas, unless you were on a level highway with light enough traffic that you hardly ever had to adjust your speed. DynaFlow was smooth, but efficient it was not. And I am a Buick lover.
No wonder people started buying VW - even at a sad 25mpg (quite poor for a 1200cc engine), it's 500% less thirsty!
My ‘55 Special gets 11 mpg local on E10 87 Octane gas. Before E10 13/16 local/interstate. I use the same gas pump to fill and divide miles by gallons. The bump from 264ci to 322 should not of halved your mpg as no e10 was available then and the ‘56 had a new stator in the Dynaslow to help “acceleration”. The nature of the transmission must of caused a lot of pedal mashing kicking in the Century’s secondaries and cutting mpg.
My '58 Buick was such a gas hog that I left it parked except for the most necessary trips. It doesn't help that I owned it after the first oil crisis. Whenever I see a 58 Buick, I can't help but still hate the car.
In the day we nicknamed them 'Dynaslush".
Buicks USP: It's bigger and heavier... 😁. I bet when the salesman talked about the more powerful engine he didn't mention that the extra power was needed to lug around the extra weight.
Meanwhile the Ford guy is telling his prospect that the lower weight Ford is more efficient 😂
eh they were all touting longer lower wider(like Jay Leno loves to quote)... and that meant bigger... big cars were king... Caddy, Imperial, Lincoln... Chevy was the lightest but i don't think made any mention of it. I don't think Ford mentioned their lower weight either. This is pretty rare for a maker to go "our car is a pig" because people were VERY aware of gas mileage.
Buy a Hudson hornet and watch the others in your rear view mirror
But the heavier Buick does ride better.
Apply full throttle. Just watch that speedometer race up! And the gas gauge plummet down.
OH SNAP your Chevy is just a "fleet taxi" vehicle with some gussied up trim on it...
Back when GM let divisions slam their fellow divisions.that stopped in the 70s..
@@pl5624 Yeah put the kibosh on the fighting... Just INSANE this ever happened...
@@pl5624 11
My best friend dad had the 1956 Buick Century when it was new. I still recall the colors. Canary Yellow and Cream White. What a beauty
Back when I parking lot looked like a field of a Easter Eggs.
Amazing that Buick was a competition to Chevrolet! Now days there’s no difference between the two.
yeah and called them names internally...
that is a huge advantage, the more similar they are, the more parts can interchange, which makes them cheaper and more readily available, and superior since the engineering can be amortized over more vehicles making them less costly. it is a huge benefit to the consumer. a cadillac or buick having same parts as a chevrolet actually benefits the buyer of all three vehicles. and as vehicles age, common available parts makes them far easier and cheaper to keep on the road, not to mention more convenient.
@@carryclass6807 make perfect sense from the accounting point of view... Chrysler had the same issue with Desoto.. since it was essentially the same vehicles but Desoto wanted their own slight differences... ended up killing them off. funny how in 57 makes had different engine sizes.
@@autochronicles8667 GM had 5 brand lines of cars all with their own engines and transmissions. It really hurt adaptability
We're the 6 volt or twelve volt electrical systems
I just saw a Ford training film strip in which a number of the Buick advantages in this film strip were described as disadvantages. Like the torque tube versus Hotchkiss drive.
By the mid 50s torque tube drive was only used by Buick and AMC/Nash. The reason why- high unsprung weight. Chrysler products had never used it. Ford products moved away from it in 1949.
Believe they were #3 in sales in '56
Try it with the siren wailing! And the red and blue lights flashing! “21-50 by”!
Yeah! Cops drove Buicks then. I wonder how many people didn’t understand your post?
It's strange, that you have to pay extra for a heater.
Best car ever made for the 50's
Strange as it sounds, Buick was the third best-selling car in America from 1954 through 1956! Plus, the Buick Special was the least-expensive model in the series, while the cars compared (Bel Air, Fairlane and Belvedere) were the top-of-the-line models
Buick was big... but Plymouth was lurking :)
I wanted a Plymouth with the red and blue lights on top and the siren 🚨 sound! But the cops didn’t let me have it! 😢
My first car ride was in a 56 Buick in early 1958, it was later replaced by a 59 Invicta.
Fun to watch, but the Ford's wheelbase in 54 - 56 was 115.5 inches. The 52 and 53 had a 115 inch wheelbase. Also, the 56 Ford could be had with a 312 V8. The 272 was the top engine in EARLY 55.
"Buick is 206.7" long!"
"Thanks for the heads-up, my garage is 200" even."
planning! :)
Highway Patrol had 56 Buick (10-4)
only for the chief... the rest got to drive taxis...
@@autochronicles8667 in some cases I’ve seen other people drive 56 Buick police cars in High way Patrol.
They indeed did, for that year only. I think they were mostly stick-shift cars.
i would think the little more hp you get from the buick will be all eaten up by its much heavier weight ...i'll take the ford..crown vic no less
If you got a manual transmission it could scoot, but they had to have called Buick's auto "Dynaslow" for a reason.
The dynaflow soaks up that extra HP, not the weight. But 255 horse, 340 ft-lb means a seriously special engine by 1956 standards. Dodge's Hemi didn't make anywhere near that in '56. Besides, nowadays any of these cars will get blown away by any crappy Honda.. I'd have the Buick for the novelty of it.
@@tubbs2132 But the crappy Honda doesn't have the torque, and can't pull a trailer. The Buick, and most any other American car could pull a trailer in stride.
@@michaelbenardo5695 The Honda won't draw attention either.. plenty of things the Buick does better. But I don't see the point in comparing power-to-weight ratios in these cars. Choose which you like, they're all cool.
The video is right the Buick was a way better quality car than a Chevrolet.
In 1981 I had a '56 Buick Special Convertible in mint condition.
I also had a '57 Chevrolet Bel Air 2 dr. hardtop in very nice condition.
The Buick had a much better smoother ride than the Chevrolet. The special was the cheap model & the bel air was the deluxe model.
In 1978 My dad bought me a '57 Chevy Bel Air 4 dr. Hardtop after I wrecked my first car
a '59 Chevrolet 2 dr. Impala in 1977. My dad said the '57 was like driving a truck I asked if his '57 Chevy he bought new felt the same way. He said no you didn't think about it then because that was the style.
Chevrolet produced over 166,000 '57 Bel Air 2 dr. Sport Coupes
but Buick only produced 9,700 56 Special Convertibles.
I HAD A 56 BUICK IN 1965 BLACK BODY WITH SILVER TOP HYD LIFTS
Even in 56 inflation sucked... Starbucks asking 10$ for a coffee yet?
It's still $1 at Cumby's.
Dan Mathews, (2150), on Highway Patrol, like his Buicks.
He also apparently liked his alcohol.
dodge ,Pontiac , mercury buyers would consider a buick ? chevy owner id might go to Oldsmobile next
Turn signals were an option in 1956??
20 hp more to move 500 more pounds...
But a lot more torque, and it is mainly torque, more than horsepower, that moves weight.
I'll take one of each: Buick and Chevrolet!
I'd tke the Torsion-Level Clipper or Packard Executive.
You could get a 368 Lincoln V8 in a Mercury in 56.
they didn't want to talk about other brands... and special editions :)
@@autochronicles8667 And I think you could have gotten the Thunderbird 312 in any trim level standard Ford. The Buick ad claimed maximum engine size was the 272 Y-Block.
@@autochronicles8667 In 1956 the top line fords could be had with a 312 that had more power than a Buick!
@@mylanmiller9656 With dual quads.
@@MisterMikeTexas They lied about that. 272 was the top early 55 engine. Also, the wheelbase on all 54 - 56 Fords was 115.5 inches.
So much for Alfred Sloans economic ladder in GM
Take that shevrolay, ferd and PLYmouth
Them's fighting words!!
@@sketchydustin8372 Not anymore it isn’t.
The heck with them get a Studebaker and get the best
I sell Buicks, next time I sell an Enclave to a 70 year old im using the weight and prestige value shtick with the "danger zone" and see if it still works.
longer lower, wider!
I agree with the lower longer wider school of thought. The lower center of gravity is important. All the cars today are top heavy - that’s why they flip over so easily in an accident.
Lol Buick ads coming up now?... someone is getting these advertising bots fine tuned...
The 56 Oldsmobile had the best transmission- the Hydramatic. Buick should have used it for increased gas mileage with the built in overdrive and the lower gears to accelerate.
When the HydraMatic plant in Livonia burned in the 50s, they briefly had to put Dynaflow transmissions in Cadillacs.
_(pssst! Nash is a better buy than Buick!)_
The 56 Buick was only one of Harley Earl's great designs.
I dont know compare Buick and Chevrolet their are seme company
buick crapping on chevy? gm divisions were out only for themselves.
Why would I want a big boat?
Comfort !!!!!
Riding comfort, quietness, and prestige.
Dynaflop?
That was a popular nick name for it.
"Diarrhea Drive"
Aesthetically, the 56 Chevys are maybe just the most beautiful GM cars ever built and surpass the 55s and 57s in looks. IMO