Re: GM, Ford reputations take a hit

Page 3 of 8  
You keep making that same promise to everybody with whom you disagree. Then you come back with your own opinion anyway. ;)
mike


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

I'll have to disagree with you on that point, Steve.
It appears to me that you are confusing tolerance with clearance (space between parts). (Certainly the two are related when you start doing tolerance stack-ups and worst-case dimension and clearance analysis).
Here's an example of tight tolerance but very large space (clearance) between parts: Part A ID is 1.0000 0.0002". Part B fits in Part A, and has an OD of 0.7500 0.0002".
In contrast, here's an example of tight tolerance, but low clearance: Part A ID is 1.0000 +0.0005/-0.0000". Part B OD is 0.9998 +0.0000/-0.0005".
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember cars of the fifties were considered high mileage at 40-50,000, and worn out not far after that.
By the time the sixties were going good, that seemed to change, especially for Ford perhaps which modernized to better casting methods, giving truer and lighter blocks. The newer small block Ford didnt seem to crack and wear out like the older ones did.
A good engine today can easily hit 150-200,000 if you're lucky.
Talked to the Buick service manager about it a few months ago (during a bench racing and BS session) and he says the metals used in the blocks are harder, tougher now causing them not to wear as much. Dont know that there is any truth to it, but could be , I guess.
But just having a longer lasting engine does not make for a satisfactory and longer lived package. I think the electrics are more complicated now, and more prone to expensive failure. I will just say in general they are less satisfactory IMO.
Transmissions vary a lot from good to terrible. In the old days, we didnt use so many automatics and our three speed manuals lasted forever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have to disagree. Today you go out turn the key the car starts and keeps running. 100k miles later, if you do the necessary preventive maintenance every 15K, it still does the same thing. Back after the war we changed oil every 1000 miles, the points, plugs, exhaust system, shock and tires every 20K it seemed LOL
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was worse than that. Cars before and after WWII, up to the 50s required spark plug cleaning every 2k miles and new points about every 5k miles. Plugs are now much better and oil consumption is very low, much cleaner combustion.. I haven't added oil between changes since the mid 80s and I change oil every 4k mile, twice per year, mainly to remove the acid from our short urban driving in damp weather. Every 1k miles or so the carburetor required a bit of fiddling, if you liked your car to run properly. The exhaust required new rear components every few years, with the SS exhaust systems we haven't had to do any exhaust maintenance since getting our '87 Daytona with SS exhaust. My '95 Concord is setting a record for shocks, the originals are still OK all around. Our previous FWD cars only needed rear shock replacement. Previous to the 80s FWD cars our front shocks needed replacement about every 20 to 30k miles. But disk brakes which are so effective need much more maintenance in the front than those ugly drum brakes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While cleaning the plugs, you also cleaned element in the oil bath the air filter. Aside from all of that, at 50,000 miles, if you made it that far, chances are it needed a ring and bearing job too. Anyone remember hot to adjust the valves with solid lifters? Replace the seals on the guides because you were burning oil?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While I agree with your comments 110%, Ed, I also remember that back in those days, the majority of us did not drive anything like the mileage we do now. If we measured the life of the car in years, they probably lasted as long, or maybe even longer than they do now. But the maintenance of points, plugs, filters was indeed worse.
For us to drive to Dallas was a major trek. Trains and buses were more used then. We or our children may see those days again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Back after WWII the minimum wage was about 35c an hour, gas was 19c. The average annual income was around $3,000 and a new Ford sold for $1,700 and it was the same car that sold for $700 1941 LOL
mike
wrote in message news:aDjzh.53051

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, the price of cars had gone down. My first car was about four months pay. I just bought a new car for about four months pay, but got one hell of a lot more car for it. Gas has gone down when I figure how many gallons of gas I could buy for an hour's wage. Life is good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's why many vehicle owners don't care how much gas they use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

You mention the oil bath air filters, but you forgot about those canister-type oil filters (before the spin-ons)!
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The canisters are coming back! Hyundai uses them on the V6. You change it from up top.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

True- if you're talking pre-1955 or so. But I'm primarily talking 60s.

I still don't know what planet you're on. Solid lifters (except on air-cooled VW junk) didn't need adjusting more than every 50k miles or so. And my dad before me racked up a solid 25,000 miles per year back in the 50s and 60s, just like I do today. And he kept cars for 5-10 years each. That '63 Valiant was on the job every day until 72. Solid lifters and all, never was a "blue smoker" of an oil burner. Of course we're talking slant-6, not stovebolt Chevy in this case.

Which, God knows why, are back in vogue on German cars. What a wretched mess :-/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Chrysler slant 6 was a very reliable engine, much better than others of the day. I've read of taxis with this engine going over 500k miles without engine work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Those engines were legend for longevity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

Yep. Although as I've pointed out, I've had a 318 and a 383 last longer than that slant-6. Pretty much all Chrysler engines from that era were legends of longevity, and very much on a par with engines of today. Better than the ones with rubber timing belts, IMO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With all due humility, (and I am not a Chrysler man) every engine that I can remember that was actually manufactured by Chrysler was virtually bulletproof.
Chevy made their turds, and Ford had some pretty sorry engines, but the REAL Chrysler engines were spectacular.
Unless I have missed something along the road;>)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

Yes, I think you are correct. It was the Mitsushitty engines that really sucked; the only non-stellar Chrysler-made engines I can think of are the more modern V-6 engines, some of which had sludging problems.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

You have a point. Most bygone Chrysler engines were pretty tough and ran almost forever. Two terrible things about them, though; they were worse than Harley motorcycles about leaking oil, and many of the carb designs were crap. Let's not forget the ubiquitous ballast resistor (ok, so that's 3). Mopars biggest problems were things "around" the motor, up to and including the rest of the car. Don't get me wrong, Chrysler muscle cars are some of the most impressive ever made. It's just that I was "there" back in the 70s when most 60-70s Mopars were just used cars. The oil leaks, carb problems and rust were enough to make me want to avoid them for my personal cars. I take care of 6 1960s-70s Mopars for a local car collector. Rust isn't an issue as they are basically garage queens. It's still a chore keeping up with the oil leaks and carb issues. The Holleys on the 6-Pack cars are the worst. (They are all FUN to drive, though! :) )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Adkins wrote:

But not half as leaky as a Ford FE!

Umm... there was nothing special about Chrysler carburetors. They were just Holleys and Carters like everyone else used also. In fact both GM and Ford used most of the same models except the Carter Thermoquad, but it was used by International Harvester.

3/4 of a million miles driven in 60s-70s Chryslers and I've NEVER had a ballast resistor fail. I've no idea where the myth that the ballast resistor is a particular problem got started.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.