Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    98,350

    Default 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!











    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Northeastern USA
    Posts
    5,404

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    The profile looks like a boat stuck in its own bow wave. But it sure is an interesting car. Never would've guessed it was a Buick.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    47,950

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Essentially hand built by one guy. Totally amazing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Southampton Ont. Canada
    Posts
    6,644

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Stock?
    R
    Sleep with one eye open.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island Sound
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Road & Track reported that it took Mr Timbs 2 1/2 years to create the car at a cost of $10,000 USD. The body was created entirely in aluminum by Emil Diedt for $8,000 alone. The shape was formed by hand over a traditional wooden buck.At first the Streamliner was only used on the show circuit until Jim Davis of California bought it in 1952. He used it in and around Manhattan Beach, California and let Motor Life photograph it for a feature article.The car was discovered in the desert pretty much intact in 2002. It was bought at auction and restored by Dave Crouse at Custom Auto, Inc. in Loveland, Colorado for owners Gary & Diane Cerveny of Malibu, California. After its “complete and exacting” restoration, it debuted at the 2010 Amelia Island Concours d'Elegance in a class reserved for Motor Trend Cover Cars.


    http://www.supercars.net/cars/4688.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,977

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Really beautiful in a bent sort of way ! I wish I could work aluminium !
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    North West Arkansas
    Posts
    64,235

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    I recognized it from cartoons... really!
    The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
    Personal failures are too important to be trusted to others.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,553

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    There's quite a bit of Auto-Union thinking in that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    98,350

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    There's quite a bit of Auto-Union thinking in that.
    I agree. I think despite the W186 being a front engine car there's quite a lot of influence from the big Mercedes land speed car as well.

    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Tulsa, Okla.
    Posts
    19,664

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    I got a 48 Buick and it's olive green.
    "para todo mal, mezcal, y para todo bien también" (for everything bad, mezcal, and for everything good, as well.)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    98,350

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    open for business
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    17,105

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Rosen View Post
    . Never would've guessed it was a Buick.
    Not finding it on Google right now, but didn't Buick create the original prototype for the Corvette or something like it? Help me here Paul.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    98,350

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Oldsmobile F88 Concept

    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    6,654

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Looking at that incredible car makes me wonder about something I've been wondering for a long while now.

    Nobody denies that the mechanicals and the electronics of modern cars are a wonderous thing. You can buy a brand new car these days and, 9 times out of 10, drive it for 75,000 miles before you need any kind of repair, and only minimal maintenence...

    ....but the body shape is just sheet metal, and it costs as much to bend it into a beutiful shape, as it does to bend it into a really ugly shape.

    So, why do auto manufacturers choose the latter, rather than the former? While I don't expect production cars to look like that Buick (I expect any car I own to have actual doors, a top, and a trunk), why aren't they hiring designers to make that sheet metal beautiful... instead of buttf#$K ugly, like MOST new cars?

    I do see a few cars, now and then, which demonstrate a little bit of artistic beauty in the shape. The new Chrysler 300, for example, has a lot of classic styling which appeals to me (although the car itself does not). I see various Mercedes and Audis that manage to look better than the average middle class car......

    ...but the run-of-the-mill middle class auto is pretty damned ugly. Special offender, IMHO, is Chevy.
    -Cost of sheet metal and forming might be the same, but the cost of shipping and assembly is probably higher.
    -what's hot to you might not be hot to what the focus groups agree is hot
    -where's McCosh when you need him

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    17,105

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Oldsmobile F88 Concept
    Must be what I was thinking of but not quite how I remembered it. Really thought there was an early fifties Buick that looked more like the first Corvette, but I sure can't find it now. One of those childhood memories that gets warped out of shape somehow. Maybe it was a plastic model in a cereal box or something.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Northeastern USA
    Posts
    5,404

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Norm, I think aerodynamics and fuel efficiency are behind a lot of the current design trends. Plus, a straight fore and aft run on a body line uses less metal than a curved one. The wave-like form in the OP would create a lot of turbulance and drag. Imagine the underbody of a boat in that shape.

    There are other consideration like interior room, ease of access for maintenance, exchangability of parts from one model to the next, etc. Most car buyers aren't middle-aged white guys on either end of a mid-life crisis who would pay a small fortune for aesthetics and nostalgia.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    21,120

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,567

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Wow, a goddess. If only the corrosion protection had been in line with the technology and the looks - and if only the technology had been robust ...

    At least in Germany, some independent garages refuse work on defect hydropneumatics. It can be a bit like chasing rust around a steel boat, the moment you are finished with repairing everything, you have to start all over again - so the customer comes back again and again and complains, that the repairs do not last.

    Had a (much later model) GS once ... But not for long. The hydraulics ... and the rust holes ...
    Last edited by Henning 4148; 10-27-2011 at 01:10 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    21,120

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Yeah - but achingly beautiful.

    Ran a Xantia for a few years - with the green sphere suspension and it worked pretty well - one repair in 100K miles - best ride and brakes ever - too much the efficient machine and not enough soul..

    The CX Pallas was the last of the really elegant Citroens
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northwest Oregon coast
    Posts
    28,973

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Nice looking cars but unless it can haul at least 2 square of roofing its a girly mans car!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,101

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by brad9798 View Post
    Thank goodness you don't understand design and foresight, doogie ...

    That car in 1948 ... let alone 2008, is a stunner ...

    WOW!
    I understand design better than most, and I'm with Doug -- I don't find it attractive. To each their own.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Norwich,United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,666

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    Yeah - but achingly beautiful.

    Ran a Xantia for a few years - with the green sphere suspension and it worked pretty well - one repair in 100K miles - best ride and brakes ever - too much the efficient machine and not enough soul..

    The CX Pallas was the last of the really elegant Citroens
    Marvellous cars,I had a CX Pallas for 100,000 relaxing miles.Most comfortable seats I have ever experienced,household examples included.Just the right number of spokes in the steering wheel too.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14,697

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    FWIW--What GM was doing in 1938 with Buick:



  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    11,183

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    I think the Delahaye takes the cake for purty:





    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    26,594

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Rosen View Post
    Norm, I think aerodynamics and fuel efficiency are behind a lot of the current design trends. Plus, a straight fore and aft run on a body line uses less metal than a curved one. The wave-like form in the OP would create a lot of turbulance and drag. Imagine the underbody of a boat in that shape.

    There are other consideration like interior room, ease of access for maintenance, exchangability of parts from one model to the next, etc. Most car buyers aren't middle-aged white guys on either end of a mid-life crisis who would pay a small fortune for aesthetics and nostalgia.
    Yeah, but it's so much better looking than this concept car from Buick:


  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14,697

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    One problem with styling/design is that the fantasy of aerodynamics is much prettier than the reality. This has made both race cars and sailboats less pleasing than when you simply had to look streamlined.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    98,350

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan McCosh View Post
    One problem with styling/design is that the fantasy of aerodynamics is much prettier than the reality. This has made both race cars and sailboats less pleasing than when you simply had to look streamlined.
    Jim Hall understood this before almost anybody else. No one ever accused Chaparrals of being pretty. . .




    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    57,358

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Bugatti made tis in 1939

    and this in 1935. the Art Deco influence was alive and well still just before the war.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,977

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Well, I'm not looking for anything radical, so I fail to see why assembly would be any different. Given the constraints of efficient assembly, the styling could still be a LOT better.



    That presumes that what the focus group is shown includes beautiful styling. Perhaps it doesn't.
    Most of the small Japanese and European car look pretty similar these days ,the current small car designs are material efficient and more especially have very low drag .This Corolla probably has a drag coefficient of .35. It's frontal area is small and the car is light . The result is good performance and very good fuel economy from not having to fight the air around it .Good design ,if unexciting .

    and apologies for posting picture of a Corolla on this thread !

    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    11,183

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Rosen View Post
    Norm, I think aerodynamics and fuel efficiency are behind a lot of the current design trends. Plus, a straight fore and aft run on a body line uses less metal than a curved one. The wave-like form in the OP would create a lot of turbulance and drag. Imagine the underbody of a boat in that shape.

    There are other consideration like interior room, ease of access for maintenance, exchangability of parts from one model to the next, etc. Most car buyers aren't middle-aged white guys on either end of a mid-life crisis who would pay a small fortune for aesthetics and nostalgia.
    Yes. The wheels got moved out to the very corners of the car to maximise usable interior space. The wheels are essentially big disks that fill the wheel wheel to minimize rotation drag/turbulence. A transverse engine, front drive configuration lets the power train snuggle in between the front wheels, again maximizing usable interior volume.

    And finally, they figgered out a while back, IIRC, that tapered back ends create more turbulence than a truncated back end (seems not intuitively obvious to me, but then I don't hang around wind tunnels much). As a result, back ends got chopped off to minimize turbulence as well, so cars resemble in profile a teardrop.

    This



    has more to do with this



    than one might realize.

    But once you implement the requirements to maximize interior volume and make it slippery, the designers have a rather limited scope of what they can play with stylistically.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    98,350

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    And finally, they figgered out a while back, IIRC, that tapered back ends create more turbulence than a truncated back end (seems not intuitively obvious to me, but then I don't hang around wind tunnels much). As a result, back ends got chopped off to minimize turbulence as well, so cars resemble in profile a teardrop.
    Not so worried about turbulence as they are clean separation of the air from the back of the vehicle, they just want the air gone!
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    26,594

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Not quite right, Nick.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback
    While the realities of fluid dynamics dictate that a teardrop shape is the ideal aerodynamic form, Kamm found that by cutting off / flattening the streamlined end of the tear at an intermediate point, and bringing that edge down towards the ground, he could gain most of the benefit of the teardrop shape without incurring such a large material, structural, and size problem.
    Sort of like why I built my centerboard with a taper to a square back. A sharp taper would be slightly better, but way too fragile.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    411

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!


    This is from 2000, compared to the first one it looks like an old shoe. Nice but not in the same Categry.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    indiana
    Posts
    277

    Default Re: 1948 Buick Streamliner - The Baddest Buick Ever!!!

    Now that is what you call "cab forward"!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •