Built like a Mercedes (?)

...Take a look

Heh heh! That's like using the statistic that 35% of auto accidents with injuries or fatalities involve drinking and driving, therefore the problem *must* be drivers who don't drink since the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in such accidents had not been drinking. An example of how statistics can mislead to the erroneous conclusions.

I'm not saying your opinion of Outlook Express is right or wrong, but the logic of your example doesn't support your conclusion.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

You should visit Mamrora here. It's like that too.

Not on my planet. Sorry, I was there and I remember well (not to mention that I own 3, two of which are daily drivers even today.) Now that may have been true of the remaining 40s and early 50s vintage cars which were still onthe road in the 60s, but NOT of the cars BUILT in the 60s.

I agree, but my premise is just that the rate of phase-in of the earliest controls (particularly the catcon, which requires feedback mixture control on larger engines) was ahead of the engineering of the time. I'm not saying that it SHOULDN'T have been done, but that perhaps a more gradual phase-in would have been better.

Not a modern digital system.

Exactly- and that was one of the things most needed (and available with feedback carburetors).

And went "phut!" with the same regularity :-)

I will give GM credit- they got reliable true processor-controlled full feedback digital fuel injection working and in mass-production way before most other manufacturers. Too bad it went on crappy engines like the HT4100....

My wording was incorrect. They weren't "exempt," but they could MEET the target grams/mile emisisons levels WITHOUT things like catcons (in some cases), air injection, OSAC, and all the other kludged emission controls that had to be thrown at the bigger engines of the day. Hence, they didn't suffer the same reliability degradations. The 79 2L Mazda inline

4 I once owned (which also put me off Japanese cars forever, but that's another story) had a catcon and EGR. Period. No air injection, no OSAC, no 'Lean Burn,' not even any electronics. Also no torque, and a Mikuni carburetor that shouldn't have ever seen production but that again is another story....

No, the claims above are just flat wrong.

That's primarily because business people don't know shit about technology.

I have this discussion with my wife. I had trained her NOT to top post in reply to emails.

She kept getting messages back from other attorneys saying "you didn't say anything". They were so lazy, they didn't even scroll down to see her replies.

YMMV Marty

Exactly, lazy slobs top post.

People who take the time and energy to actually be considerate, trim there messages, and post at the bottom of the relevant quoted content.

Marty

I totally agree.

The importance of trimming cannot be underestimated either. Proper trimming alone answers most of the 'criticism' that top-posters offer.

Graham

This is called anecdote. Just because you foolishly overload your vehicle, doesn't say anything about US truck usage in general.

In my personal experience, US roads are excellent (with some variation), and most light trucks (4 wheelers) don't get very heavy use.

Since we seem to be drifting back on-topic I'll add that in the UK at least, most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavy(ish) loads.

Like this here..... Popular with builders for example....

Graham

Where else would John Delorean get bad ideas from?

In tht year Subaru sold it's SEAC lean burn engine - and Honda sold it's lean burning CVVC - neither of which even had a cat.

You never drove a Ford back then I assume.

My first car was a '68 Ford. I never owned a >>GM

True enough, though history suggests that the industry would in that case have simply waited for the (later) deadline to do the R&D, giving us nothing but a few years more of dirty car exhaust.

Closed-loop operation appeared with EFI in '77, before feedback carburetors appeared.

Agreed, though there was still a fair amount of emission control engineering (good and bad) that went onto smaller Japanese cars in the US market that got left off in other markets. 3-valve engines (MCA-jet), Honda CVCC, and a whole host of add-on emission devices and Frankencarbs that were every bit as devillish as those installed by Detroit.

DS

He is very good at tall stories.

Ford Transit, Isuzu forward control, Nissan Cabstar, LDV and other almost bonnetless or forward control commercial vehicles dominate the load carrying sector between 1 ton and 6 ton capacity. Very few indeed are used for non commercial purposes as you know. In contrast to the majority of 1 ton pickups, these are seldom all wheel drive.

Huw

Well I was a mechanic in the sixties and seventies and did a LOT of valve jobs. Replaced a lot of lifters and camshafts, particularly on GM engines - liftes on mid sixties inline sixes, camshafts on eights ( more in the seventies) and lots of rocker problems on 351 and 400 fords. Lots of Mopar timing chains. Lots of GM timing gears (plastic gears turned to popcorn) again nmore in the seventies. Lots of re-rings too. Lost count of the 235 and 261 Chevy sixes I overhauled.Lots of (nasty) flathead mopar valve jobs too, and even a couple cracked heads. Lots of bad cams and lifters in early (big block) 318 mopars too. The VAST majority long before 100,000 miles - and at 100,000 virtually any car was considered pretty well worn out. Yes, there were exceptions - and some of them you'd never expect, like the '61 Morris

850 apart for the first time at 196000 miles, and those you would expect, like the '63 slant six valve job at about 130,000 because the valves were not adjusted often enough and burned.

MOST north american roads are pretty good by world standards, but there are more miles of bad roads in North America than all the roads put together in most countries of the world, due to the overwelming number of miles of road involved. Many "urban" light trucks do not carry ANY load - but that is pretty well made up for by those who habitually overload them by magnitudes of 4 or 5, and occaisionaly 8 or 10. In our area, it is NOTHING to see a 1/2 ton truck loaded with 2 tons. - just like it's nothing to see pickups that have NEVER carried as much as 500 lbs in the box. (but some have over 700 lbs just on the front seats)

And the rated load capacity on the 4wd is generally LOWER than on the

2wd. Due in part to the extra weight of the 4wd cutting into the RGVW.

"Canadian Winter" is a joke so far this year. Can't see ANY snow here, where we would generally have several feet at this time.