1953 Burnside Special

Thanks!

I've also decided to re-make the Burnside in Automation, as the Burnside V8 Marshal, to give it a bit of a link to the Bluebuck and Grand Marshal. It's got 155 horsepower and ~260 lb-ft of torque out of a 5.1-liter V8, with a 2-speed automatic geared to 141 mph. It's 5.35m long, 2.05m wide, with a 3.25m wheelbase, and it weights 4,022 lbs in Automation.

Here's a couple images of it in Automation, in red and black.


And here it is in BeamNG, compared to the regular Burnside.



And here's the file for it:

You can slag me all you like for this vehicle, if you find it bad. I probably got a LOT of things wrong on it.

 

I wonder if the Burnside will ever get a Lowrider variant?

here's a quick one I put together.

--- Post updated ---

I would say go with a combination of the 59 GM B Body range. Ideally I would want at least 3 model lines in one, something lower end like the Impala. Mid range like a Pontiac and a high end like Buick or Oldsmobile. Interiors should be different too.

For years I disliked how in BeamNG a low end trim has the same interior as one that's high end.
don't get me started how worn out rust variants have nice interiors.

This is what some mods have over official vehicles.

 

considering there's already the bluebuck and the burnside, both full-size body-on-frame cars, i think if they were going to make an over-the-top late 50's car, it would have to be substantially larger and more upmarket than both the burnside and bluebuck, being either a fancier burnside model, or from another brand entirely (even maybe the bruckell family?).
something more akin to a lincoln town car, or a cadillac eldorado.
(there might also be some interesting technology they could implement with it as well).

 

I think the C platform was close to the X Frame of the B Body so you could (in theory) use a decent chunk of the Bluebuck's chassis Jbeam.

 

if they ever make a fullsize late '50s anything, then it better not be based off anything chevrolet, or i'll raise hell. Those things were just woefully terrible in every way possible, especially the '57s. They are sad, miserable, dangerous cars that really live up to the term "American boat". To this day I still don't understand the hype around any of them. Other GMs are nice likes Buicks and Oldsmobiles but just not that Chevrolet, worst cars ever made (yes I know my Chryslers were bad but what car in 50s had good fitment and sealing?) hell, Chevrolet dealers were trying anything to move those cars out the lot because people flocked to Chrysler and Ford, even giving away free washing machines and fridges! Although there dashboards weren't too bad

 

It's amazing how as you said "Chevrolet dealers were trying anything to move those cars out the lot because people flocked to Chrysler and Ford, even giving away free washing machines and fridges!" how they went from that to selling one of the biggest selling automotive platforms (selling 12,960,000 between 1965 and 1970) in only a short few years.

 

In 1957 my grandfather was working as a GM mechanic, and my great-uncle was a GM salesman (Cadillac specifically), my dad has owned three different '57 Bel Airs, and I've had the pleasure of knowing a few tri-fives myself -- so I have it on pretty good authority that GM's quality and reputation throughout the late 1950's weren't bad at all. Go drive a '57 Chrysler anything, if you can find one -- the 57's and 58's are hard to find because by 1960 they'd completely rusted out from under their drivers. How about a Ford? Have fun with garbage drive trains that are notorious for failures (except rear-ends ofc). I will say the Ford Fairlane Victoria with the skylight has a special place in my heart.

 

.

oh yeah I completely agree with you but those Chevrolets (remember we talked about this in the bluebuck thread) were most definitely NOT drivers cars. Fords just broke and Chryslers... Well we all know about that. And to my defence have you ever seen an unrestored or untouched late 50s cars (yes including Chevrolet) with everything still in its original dealership condition, including trim and upholstery ? This is of course excluding museum pieces and extremely low mileage cars. Ok I am biased against Chevrolet, I don't know why but I just hate them, so that doesn't help in my argument. The only reason (or so I think) why the chevs were so popular was because they were incredibly modifiable and cheap, reliable, and didn't rust out at the first sight of rain, and of course they didn't leak anywhere near as much as a Chrysler, But five turns lock to lock, a 283 Mini V8 as the biggest option and 8 inch drum brakes that were the same as the 1950 models could hardly be called sporty or even inspiring, not to mention that god awful thing called the Turboglide, they shattered to bits, though the newer versions not as badly but the damage was done anyway. And to hell with any claims to performance when they were equipped with the Powerglide (I will give credit though because they were near invincible), even on the 280hp fuel injected 283 engine. The police departments went for Dodges and/or Plymouths for a reason you know, panic braking in '58 chev could separate rear axle with the frame. Oh dear. Also the engines fouled the plugs when idling for extended periods of time, like most cop cars did. Did I mention X frames ? the less said the better...
--- Post updated ---

That's because it was 1965-1970, not 1957. Not to mention some disgruntled Buick workers when laid off for whatever reason said that many production records were fudged all the back to 1950, not sure if this extends to Chevrolet as well but its very much possible

 

Yeah, I try hard to forget x-frames... pretty cars were mounted on them though. Keep an open mind, older Chevy cars were fine automobiles, revolutionary and implemented a lot of modern automotive technology. I've actually seen several late 50's Chevys in original condition, a couple Fords, and not a single Chrysler of any model. Sad to see what's happened to GM -- absolute garbage company now, you couldn't pay me to own any of their vehicles.

 

you know what's the solution to this debacle? go with the indipendets: Packards were sturdy (at least until '54) and beautifully enegneerd. Heck they had the first fully transistor controlled shifting mechanism (the touch-button ultramatic drive). Nashes were robust, they didn't rattle and leack, like all the big 3's cars (outside cadillacs, imperials and lincolns, those were fantastically built, full of technology and had some fantastic jet age styling, but they cost a lot of money) and used the only long lasting thing that ever came out of chrysler in the late 50s: the torqueflyte 3 speed auto box. Hudson built the fastsest cars in america at that time, it used a unibody construction and radial tyres, so it handled properly. Studebackers were "different by design" and offered one of the geatest invention, if not the only useful to the civilized world alongside jazz that came out of america: the v8 (yes ford did that already but we are now talking about pushrod engines, not flatheads). Kaisers ahd the best, by far, even overtaking cadilac, interiors and were very well built and to this day, thanks to the quality of the steel and the good paint used, they don't rust. All these manifacturers built better cars than the big 3 but lacked the money to continue to innovate the styling, and this is why they don't exist anymore.
EDIT: x frames are poo but offer a flat floor and a smooth ride

 

The 60 Chevrolet was quite pretty, ill give you that, but still had 5 turns lock to lock, the 348 was only making modest power and the fabulous squared up horizontal wings were very dangerous at speeds of excess of 100mph. So it isn't listed so high up in my favourites but its the only chev I try to like. But... Well... The X frame.. yeah that thing again keeps on popping up. If only Chrysler management could get their s**t together (im on my last strike) then the cars might not have been rushed and wouldn't have lasted longer, luckily the '60 models (which I consider some of Exners best) were built well
--- Post updated ---

I don't mind my Hudsons with their "Twin H Power" sixes and their step down body frame. But just not my style, Im a Plymouth man through and through, mainly because they one of the forgotten gaints, mistreated by Chrylser, and made some of the worlds fastest production cars (The 1956 Plymouth Fury could run out a top speed of 149 mph... On compacted sand that is so. How fast on tarmac I wonder?). Not to mention their superior (for the time) Torsion bar suspension and near European ideals of sports car weight distribution and handling for the '57s and '58s

 

Obviously the sollution is to simulate these sales tactics. Make jbeamed home appliance props that come whenever you spawn a 1950's Bruckell.

 

delete

 

Do the Devs read this thread? I have a suggestion for an ULTRA minor but period correct update for the Burnside.

The default 5-slot wheels look like something out of the 1980s and not the 1950s. The four slot looks far more like the typical wheels of the era.

Default 5-slot:


Suggestion to make the default at the next update (4-slot):


Reference: 1954 DeSoto wheel

 

Considering the widespread facelifts going around with content updates, I'd like to share an idea in regard to the burnside.
the current burnside's production run is listed as '53-'54, and this is reasonable considering how frequent facelifts were on american cars of this era.
Extending the production of the special forward, for a '55-'56 facelift would be quite difficult, as most cars of that year changed the whole body shape, with the beltline being as high as the window sills, and often having the hood and trunk lower than the quarterpanels, like the oldsmobile and desoto shown below.

a more reasonable alternative would be to go back, even as far as '48 or '49, as there's a reasonable workaround for the body changes in that direction.
The front end would be quite easy; make a narrower hood, some fenders to match, and a different arrangement of grille bars to spice it up.

but where it gets really interesting is the back.
while a full rear remodel would be required for a 49-50 style "aero" tail, like this buick (the same body as the chevy and olds of the era)

there were also a decent amount of cars with about the same roof shape. in fact, the only differences are that the rear quarterpanels angle down a lot more, making the boot a lot rounder, and the rear window is smaller.


making the rear quarterpanels (and whole trunklid surround) selectable, broken along the base of the rear window as I have it higlighted above, and having the taillights, wheel skirts and trunklid slots under it, would not only look very distinct looking '49-'50 facelift, but it would also allow a way to make radiused rear arches for mean looking stock car or gasser configs.
it also has the benefit that you don't even need to make different doors, as the fender top only drops off after the door.
you could also make a similar interchangeable roof with a smaller rear window.

 

and if that is done then it wouldn't make sense to have such a modern and powerful engine, Flathead V8, Flathead V8, Flathead V8. And I think the interior could do with some inspiration (make it less inspiring) as well, maybe taking some ques from the '49 ford
or '50 mercury

or

 

none of these Vee-eights, a Straight 8 is the way to go, buick style!
I certainly agree that some other interior options would be good, along with the gaudy mid-50s colour match. a brown leather like what you have there, on the early trims, and perhaps a simple grey cloth for the later more basic models.

 

Well seeing as Burnside seems to be on par with Buick I don't see why not, but who doesn't love that offbeat sounding, gutless flathead V8. Don't forget a new modern OHV 6 !

 

I didn't think of that. You're right; it would be easier to do pre-facelifts for Burnside and Bluebuck. The Bluebuck shape is more like the late '50s cars and the Burnside shares its cues with the late '40s models.

 

I have to admit, these are some fantastic ideas! I would love a post-war late-40's pre-facelift.