Crude for sure. It doesn't even have a way for the PCM to adjust the idle
There's just a kicker solenoid to bump the idle up when the AC cycles on (just
a carb). A year or so later the same CFI system used an Idle Speed Control motor
was controlled by the PCM. It always seemed to me that they pushed CFI into
before it was quite ready.
Also when you do replace a $5 part, you don't have to disassemble half
the engine to get to it due to the order-of-magnitude increase in number
of surrounding parts and super-tight integration.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
I'd have to agree. The mid-70s "lean burn" engines had some problems,
but that was because the lean combustion process was *incredibly* hard
on them, with very high peak temperatures and pretty much continuous
detonation. The fact that they worked as well as they did was a
testament to the underlying mechanical design. And of course all through
the 80s they wrapped very solid drivetrains in wretched K-car garb...
I'm a fan of all American cars from that era. Really my only engine
gripe among the American automakers was with Chevrolet and to a lesser
degree Pontiac. And don't get me wrong, I'd still take either of them
over a Toyota or Honda! The small block Chevy was a basically good
engine- actually a superb basic design and far ahead of its time as
anyone will tell you, but the constant push to make it *cheap* to
produce really compromized the implementation. It was pushed all the way
to 400 cubic inches without an increase in deck height, and that really
hurt longevity because of the terrible rod ratio that resulted. Even the
venerable 350 has a pretty bad rod ratio, the 327 and 283 being far
superior in that regard. But the soft block material was a real killer
on all of them. And the rather weak ball-stud valvetrain was a huge
problem on the big-block Chevy engines. Oldsmobile made very bulletproof
engines, Buick made a very solid v8 engine and still does in the 3800
v6. And the aluminum Buick v8 that got sold to Rover and was used in
British cars for 40 years was also a work of art. The true Cadillac
engines were great in the 50s-70s, HORRIBLE in the 80s (HT 4100 anyone?
Or a V8-6-4?), and good again after the switch to the Northstar series.
Fords could be "quirky," with some odd oiling system characteristics and
the FE series had that funky manifold/head setup that liked to weep oil
and made service a pain. And the 429/460 were just WAY heavier than they
had any right to be, but they were pretty solid. The small-block Fords
(Windsor) were in a way opposite of the SB Chevy. On paper they *looked*
worse than the Chevy (tiny deck height up through the 5.0L displacement,
etc.) but yet the implementation was always pretty darned good without
as much of the push to cheapen things that seemed to dog the Chevy.
Well, I'm not a fan of any of them built in the late 70s to early 80s.
By that time the tooling was getting OLD and neglected because of the
financial condition of the company, and when you start tearing one from
that era down you find that there was a lot more slop than 10 years
before or from the mid 80s on. I'm not talking about things like
clearances, which were controlled during assembly, but things like the
decks not being perfectly parallel to the crank axis, lifter bores not
being perfectly perpendicular to the cam axis, combustion chamber
volumes varying all over the map, cylinder wall thicknesses being very
non-uniform, castings with flaws that would have made them rejects in
earlier years, etc. That kind of thing is where the 50s Chrysler Hemis
were SO superb despite being at a disadvantage in terms of materials
compared to later engines. They left the factory "blueprinted"
practically to a level that required a custom machine shop in the 70s or
80s. Its also why they were phased out as being too expensive to produce.
I don't know about Ford, but Chrysler made the switch to a very hard
block alloy across all engine families in 1962, along with major changes
in casting methods to lighten the blocks. That was the longevity turning
point for Chrysler engines, although the 50s Hemis lived a long time
simply because of very high build quality compared to the industry
average at the time. I think most of those changes were already in place
for the slant-6 when it debuted in 1960.
Olds, Pontiac, and Buick switched block materials around that time as
well, with Oldbmobile blocks being particularly well-known for hardness.
Only Chevrolet continued along with cheap, soft, low-nickel block
material all the way into the 80s and 90s.
some poor ones, in the haste to keep up with the compedition.
The old 3 spd manual transmissions were tough, but they were very crude,
no syncro on 1st., and clutches were a constant maintenance item.
Auto transmissions now shift better than most people can manually shift.
Engines 50 years age had a lot more tongue. Modern engines, particularly
todays Jap engines run at much higher RPMs than engines back them Remember
all the 4cy Jap engines of those days, they used hollow cast cranks and
machined the aluminum block as the main bearings, like a motorcycle or a
lawn mower engine? When a bearing failed you had to junk the engine That
is one of the reasons you never see any Jap cars form the seventies at an
old cars show LOL
The very crude Yugo from a out of date car company is not worthy of
mentioning in an intelligent conservation.
I doubt if they lasted more than 2 years here. >:)
Quite a few years I heard this story in the UK.
A chap went into a car parts shop and said he wanted a side view mirror
for his Yugo.
After several seconds of thought the car parts chap said:
"OK I'll do that trade."
Thinking back to all the cars I owned in the 60's and 70's, I can't agree.
Not one of my cars from that era lasted as long or ran as well as my cars
from the 90's. Of course, there will always be exceptions.
As Jeff says SS exhausts don't need replacement, unless you break them.
I used to replace the rear muffler every 2 years, the pipe in front of
it every 3 years.
My wife's '87 Daytona (first year they had SS exhaust) had it's original
exhaust when she traded it at 14 years.
Shocks last a very long time, those on my Concord are fine at 90k miles,
whereas in the 60s they lasted about 40-50k miles max.
The interiors look fine at 10+ years, in fact my 12 yr old Concord's
drivers seat looks as new. Upholstery seems to last forever, who now
bothers with seat covers. Dashboards now stand our summer sun.
Exterior paint lasts well over 10 years looking very good. With clear
coat I haven't waxed my cars since pre '86, just use a wash and wax-
Body rust is a thing of the past due to galvanized steel, unless driving
is on gravel roads.
My previous '86 Chrysler also stood up very well, but not as well as my
current '95 Concord.
Our engines seem to go forever, not even burning more oil than when new
at over 90k miles. We haven't kept one longer than that.
And not go through hoops to get the repairs covered.
My father has a 2001 or so Grand Prix. My dad a lot of engine rebuilding and
head repair work for the dealer over maybe 40 years. When there was a
problem with the transmission, most of the costumes got a replacement
transmission, but had to pay for the labor. However, because my father knew
the people in shop, they got GM to pay for the whole thing. All the
costumers, not just my dad, should have gotten the whole thing done without
cost. After all, they paid for a working transmission when they bought the
That's been a major problem for Ford. Ford has been unable to bring out a
profitable car in the $12k segment. So those buyers go to Toyota Yaris,
Honda Fit or a Hyundai. (I don't know what the cheapest Kia or Hyaundai
sells for, but hte cheapest Toyota and Honda I believe are over $10k.) Then,
in five years, when they start making more money and need a new car, the new
car is Toyota, Honda or Hyundai. And it more like a Rav 4 for a Tundra or
Camry, an Accord or Pilot or whatever new and better car comes for Korea.
However, if the first car was a Ford or GM, so might be the second and
Beyond their quality, they have an additional problem that they can't get
control of. Many of their dealers make it pure torture to both buy and own
their products. Many of their enemies were created by the dealers, not the
product or the corporation.
They say they can't really tell their dealers what to do. They're
independent. Personally, I bet there are people everywhere who would be
more than willing to represent them.
enter their business again.
Here we have one rich cat who made his initial fortune on a Gm
dealership. He now has many dealerships of several stripes including
Toyota. Toyota is recent for him, he's a survivor.
His approach is to fire the worst salesman of each month.
This attitude of intimidation is passed on against the customers.
i've tried them 4 times over 20 years; since I don't submit to their
intimidation I leave very soon.
Buying a new car is a tough enough decision, without this as well.
He hasn't taken up a Chrysler dealership.
I can remember trying to some warranty work done.
" Make an appointment, bring it in a few weeks from now,
and be prepared to leave it for 2 or 3 days"
I drove my ( new ) Chevette to the dealers
with the <Check Engine> light on.
When I picked it up 3 days later, the light was still ON.
"Oh..... leave it a few more days"....... YEAH !!
You don't even mind paying the fee for a "gentle screwing"
as long as the work gets done well.
But when they overcharge for a job badly done.....
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.