GM, Ford reputations take a hit

Page 4 of 8  


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

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

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:

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
Steve wrote:

believe most Chrysler products used Carter. They all used Holley carbs from time to time. You will find the occasional Quadrajet on a Ford, but this was an exception. The most common 4 barrell on Mopars was the AFB(?) and it was a very good unit. The TQs were leaky and temperamental, as were the 2 barrell carbs. Holleys are a PITA no matter what they were used on IMHO.

No myth Steve, I've seen it for myself many times. You just got lucky. If I had a nickel for every ballast resistor I replaced back then, I would be pretty well off. I used to carry one in the glove box of my car to help out stranded motorists. If you saw a Chrysler product broken down beside the road, most often it was due to the ballast resistor.
Don't get me wrong Steve, I'm not saying this just to rag on Chrysler products. All of the manufacturers had their quirks. I always preferred Fords and dealt with my share of flaky chokes, hard starts on damp days, bent pushrods and cracked exhaust manifolds. Now that these cars are collectible, folks tend to forget the faults that were common when they were in daily service.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Adkins wrote:

Except in high-performance applications.

And quite a few Holleys.
Neither of which is an improvement over Carter or Holley....

Overall, I'd say it was very close to 50/50 Holley and Carter.

And 80's Mopar copcars, too, after the TQ went out of production

50's thru about '68, after that it was the Carter AVS. Then around 70 or 71, it became mostly Holley 4-barrels (although the hi-po engines kept the AVS), and then the Thermoquad after that.

And absolutely WONDERFUL when you take good care of them. IMO, it was the most advanced carb ever made before fuel injection ended the carb era. I've got a small stash of them, and currently run one on my 318 car. I get about 3 mpg better with it than any other carb I've used. When I built the engine in my 440 car, I put an M-1 intake on it but now I really wish I'd used a spread-bore intake so I could properly run a TQ. Especially in the winter when this high vapor-pressure winter-blend crap fuel tries to vapor-lock every time the outside temp gets over 60. I could run an adaptor, but that is pretty third-rate.

The Holley 2-barrels were creeping crud, and so were the 1-barrel Holleys that sometimes showed up on the slant-6 instead of the Carter BBS. But most 2-barrel Mopars got the Carter BBD, and that was a bulletproof little brick of a carb.
Holleys are a PITA no

Well, I happen to agree there. I'm a die-hard Carter guy. Holley and Autolite *both* used rubber diaphragm accelerator pumps that were just as likely to dump fuel all over the top of the intake manifold as they were to squirt it inside the carb :-/ Gotta admit, the Quadrajet is a nice piece too.

Oh, I agree there are always going to be quirks. To me that's 90% of the appeal of owning an old car- they have character and class. I was hoping you'd clarify what you thought the actual Mopar carb quirks were, because I was going to offer my opinion on what might have caused what you remember: on most 2-bbl small-block Mopars, the exhaust crossover passage below the carb had a tendency to plug up pretty solid with carbon over the course of about 5 years, particularly with a lot of short-trip driving. Once the carb heat was effectively blocked, all sorts of cold driveability problems cropped up. It doesn't seem to happen if you put dual exhausts on the car, and my suspicion is the slight imbalance in back-pressure is enough to keep the passage cleared out better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

on the road.

Hmmm. I never saw a Q-jet on a Mopar. That's a new one on me.

Q-jet and replaced it with a TQ on GM cars. My experience with them, though was that they were leaky and tempermental. Vapor lock also comes to mind. Maybe I just didn't know how to fix them correctly. Wasn't there an issue with the fuel bowls warping or something along that line.

My experience with the BBD wasn't as good. It's been many years, but I seem to remember quite a bit of internal vacuum leaks and hot start issues. The Holley 1-bbl may be tainting my view of other carbs used by Mopar, though.

The AFB and AVS were,IMHO, the best carbs made in their day.
Holley and

Gotta admit, the Quadrajet is a

All in all, carburetors were a pain in general. I just seem to have had more issues with Holley and certain Carter units than most others.

description would contain a few 4 letter words.
I was hoping

the Mopars that I care for today, the Carters are very little trouble (all 4-bbl). The 3 6-Pack cars (Holley) are a constant battle tweaking and stopping leaks.
As for oil leaks, I'll quote the fellow that owns them: "If a Mopar didn't leak oil, I'd think there was something wrong it".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Adkins wrote:

I was as surprised as anyone, but when Carter stopped the TQ in about 84, Chrysler switched over to the Quadrajet since they only had spread-bore 4-bbl manifolds still in production (and spread-bore carbs work so well on the smallblock Mopar v8). They were used in the copcars as well as trucks and Ramchargers that had 4-bbl carburetion. What *I* haven't seen or known about until you mentioned it was that Ford ever used the QJ.

I won't argue that the TQ is a difficult animal. It doesn't tolerate rough handling, and it doesn't tolerate a lot of fuel additives. The weakest link is the "X" section O-ring pair that seals each main jet in the main body to the "well" in the throttle body when you bolt it all together. They are basically a routine maintenance item because they WILL harden and start leaking over time, which bypasses the primary metering jets causing the carb to run richer and richer. But it DOES actually resist vapor locking far better than other carbs- the whole reason for the phenolic main body was to keep the fuel cooler. It typically cuts the fuel temperature by 20-30 degrees F compared to an aluminum carb on the same engine/manifold combo.

But *MY* daily ride *IS* a 1966 440-powered AVS-carb'd (Edelbrock repro, actually) Mopar :-)

I've never owned a Mopar 6-pack or GM tri-power, and I probably never will! A good large 4-bbl actually performs better unless the 6-pack setup is perfectly tweaked... and they never stay tweaked.

They don't leak oil. They mark their territory.
I can actually get a vintage big-block Mopar to be completely dry if I'm careful. And before you ask... NO, my current one isn't completely dry :-p But its close, one small weep on the passenger-side valve cover.
The smallblocks, with those PITA manifold end-seals and the Chevy-style 3-piece oil pan gaskets are a different story. They went to a 1-piece pan gasket on the 92-up "Magnum" smallblocks along with all-machined gasket surfaces instead of rough casting surfaces, and that finally fixed the leaks for good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:
What *I*

occasionally over the years. I believe it was used in police applications for a brief time in ~1970.

I guess that was my original point. Today there is a certain amount of fun to be had, and pride to be taken, in the care and feeding of these carbs. Back when these cars were new(ish), these problems could be a real inconvenience for folks that relied on them for daily transport.
But it DOES

I thought that was the case.

SWEET!

I certainly don't own them. Way to rich for my blood. I just live vicariously through someone else's toys. I consider myself lucky and I've gained an appreciation for Mopar in the last couple of years. The 6 Pack cars are: 69 Super Bee 440, 71 AAR Cuda 360, and 71 Roadrunner 440. You might appreciate the other muli carb one in the bunch, it's a 63 Savoy Super Stock 426 Wedge. That car is downright scary.

And before you ask... NO, my current one isn't completely dry

Well, "If it didn't leak..."
I've often wondered why we fight our little battles with these old beasts. They were supposed to have been scrapped years ago. We spend money, time, money and frustration to keep these cars alive. Is it love? sentiment? nostalgia? Naw, I think it's a virus.
We had about 2 feet of snow here yesterday. Excuse me while I go fiddle with the choke and dry the distributor cap on my Ford. Hmm, I think that accelerator pump is starting to dribble...again!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Adkins wrote:

Works of art, those early dual-quad long-rams with the carbs sitting way out over the shock tower! The super-stocks were unbelievable, but just a plain old dual-quad 413 in a Chrysler 300 is scary enough.

But truth be told, I spend the same or LESS actual money on the old car than on my wife's modern one. More parts get replaced on the old car, but 10 of those parts are cheaper than 1 sensor on the newer car. Nevermind that the new car cost around 20k just to buy in the first place. Some people would ask "what's your time worth," but since it doubles as a hobby I can answer "my time's worth too much to waste it playing golf when I could be spinning wrenches and having FUN." :-)

No snow here, but it was around 28 degrees this morning. The ol' 440 fired right up like any other day. Gotta love the electric chokes on these new Carter/Edelbrocks :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote: Some people would ask "what's your time worth," but since it

I couldn't have said it better!! I hope you noticed the tongue in my cheek as I wrote the last part of that statement. I love old iron, no matter who made it. In addition to cars, here's the other way I have fun: www.lakeshorerailway.org How much is my time worth? I actually pay $20 per year to do it!

I haven't actually had a car with a carb in some time, Fuel injection is a wonderful thing. Here's a bit of an oddity that you might appreciate. My daily driver is a 1984 Lincoln Mark VII. It's a 5.0 with Central Fuel Injection. The CFI unit actually has a heated "choke" spring, fast idle cam and "choke" pulloff just like on the old Autolite carb. It's just a fast idle system though, no choke plate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Adkins wrote:

I work with "kids" who've never even DRIVEN a carbureted car :-/ Fuel injection is amazing to someone like me who grew up with carbs.... Until something breaks ;-) No, I'm not a luddite who fears or dislikes it. Its very reliable and easy to fix when something does go wrong... just tends to be expensive. Mainly because there ARE no cheap parts in it like there are in a carb.

The only EFI from that era that I'm really familiar with was on the gone-and-not-missed Cadillac HT4100 (talk about "reputations taking a hit!") that I used to care for and feed for my parents. It was a full-up digital throttle-body EFI, though, all idle speeds controlled by computer. I've looked at the EFI used on the 81-83 Imperial a little, and it was pretty far ahead of its time too. It was actually a mass air flow system, but it reached a little far ahead of the state of the art and was regarded as a failure. Still a number of them out there running around though- they sometimes show up at Mopar shows.
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.