Built like a Mercedes (?)

Well, they sure wouldn't want to hear what I towed over Vail Pass, Colorado with a 318 (5.2L) in that old 79 D-150, would they?

Nor would they want to hear what it gets for fuel economy either.

Budd

> a new version of the L200 has recently been launched>

>

> a new version of the L200 has recently been launched>>

Interesting because as I remember it there were few emmission controls in Europe until catalytic convertors became mandatory some time around 1989/90. Before this we had a decade of 'lean burn' engines which were surprisingly economical, especially as during this time fuel injection became dominant either in single point or multi point types. The exhaust was not clean though and did stink. Even after catalysts became mandatory the fuel was not cleaned of sulphur and bad egg gas and failed Nicasil was a problem up until about 95.

And yes, oils improved. That is the same on both sides of the pond because the American Petroleum Institute standards predominate and set the minimum standard for oils everywhere.

While all 60s engines were *capable* of long life, not all of

No we didn't have that problem but we didn't have the emmission controls either.

We had the 112hp 0-60 in 8.2 seconds VW Golf GTi and the Peugeot 206 GTi affordable pocket rockets. Lots of high performance bigger cars as well. I had a Golf GTi and an MG Montego and an Audi Quattro. All lovely cars in their way and substantially high performance. Then there was the Rover 3.5 Vittesse and lots of exotics from Italian Ferrari, Lamborghini etc. The start of BMW M series. The list goes on.

Huw

In many ways, the European timetable for phasing in emission standards made a lot more sense than the US. We were the guinea pigs. We also had to do it before digital EFI was possible. We broke a lot of engines in the process, and our cars got a bad rap in that time frame, too. In some ways it was deserved because the cars *did* break. But the reasons they broke were largely because of government edict, not bad engineering. A lot of the early Japanese cars that started the "Japanese cars are more reliable!" mythos were exempt from the more stringent emission controls because their engines were small enough.

One thing you guys did very wrong was delay so long in getting rid of leaded fuel. But you beat the crap out of us in terms of getting better diesel fuels on the market in recent years.

It was uncommon. Generally in the 60's 100,000 miles was about time for a rebuild. At the very least the heads rebuilt. Sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule.

That may be true of an engine getting average care. My point is that the majority of the engines (I'd almost say "all," but some of the Chevrolet blocks were so soft they'd never make it) were CAPABLE of 200k or much more, but not everyone gave them decent oil or care. Single-grade oil was still used more often than multi-grade, and non-detergent oil was still in common use. I remember both as late as the mid 70s. We always used good multi-grade oils, and never had any engine from that era from

2 manufacturers (Ford and Chrysler) that did *not* last way, way past 100k miles. In fact the 1949 Plymouth flathead six engine that my grandfather had rebuilt in 1964 is still running (not frequently, but it runs fine) on that rebuild today, with about 100k since the rebuild. I've still got the receipts... a complete overhaul for about $600. Times have sure changed!

Yes, during the sixties 100,000 miles was the exception, not the rule. Valve jobs at under 50,000 were not unheard of. Cams and lifters were also weak spots. And rocker arms.Timing chains usually needed replacement around 100,000 as well.

You forget I worked for Toyota and also worked in Africa, where the Hilux WAS available as a half ton, And Toyota UK did, at least up to a couple years ago sell the hilux as a half ton. Wasn't able to get the specs on the 2005/2006 british versions because the web page would not downloads the e-brochure.

Well if that is what you meant, fine, but you responded to the above quote in such a way that you SAID something far different.

************************* Dave

I like to be clear, Dave. How did I resp>>>>>>>>The most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and China

to which I responded:

Boy - someone needs to go to Haiti or Burkina Faso. Quite densely populated compared to the USA, Canada, Europe, or even South Africa, and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world.

Pretty clear, I thought, sarcasm not withstanding.

You've snipped it out of context.

No evidence was offered that "Americans are harder on our vehicles " whatever. Simply an assertion out of thin air.

Graham

Well Graham, I guess you missed the part where I stated that I personally had 7,000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity, legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity, has axle and tire ratings for 12,000lbs (gross) and (here is the part you deny seeing) with thta load weighed in at

14,000 lbs gross. So your one ton trucks are great. But apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of THREE tons.

Now, if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isn't being hard on it, what in your view, IS being hard on it?

Some of us do just fine with OE. It's not the tool, but the skill of the one using the tool that most often makes the difference.

Canadian winters?

Was this a trick question?

Its only a trick question if your name is Graham or Huw.

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Somebody had to make a start on attacking the problem somewhere, and it was us. Without that start, there'd've been much less impetus for the development of things like "digital" (electronic) fuel injection and other engine management and emission control technologies. Want proof? Go look at a 1990-model Mexican-market Chrysler Spirit. Parked at the curb, it looks almost exactly like its US Dodge Spirit counterpart. But those cars, brand new from the factory in 1990, had carbureted 2.5l engines running on leaded gasoline. Emission/ignition/fuel system that would've been current circa 1971 in the US and Canada (maybe that's overstating the case a little; the '90 Mexican Spirits have electronic control of spark advance, but that's the *only* modern engine management system they have). And that's just one example. How 'bout carbureted Volvos (with manual chokes, even!) clear on up through the late '80s and early '90s in some countries? Sometimes carmakers decided to equip all their worldwide production with the most modern of emission control systems, but often they did not. Somebody had to start the process by writing a law.

Of course, taking up the cause first meant, by definition, that we were the ones to have to cope with the problematic, incomplete results of the early efforts as we moved through the learning curve.

Disagree. Bosch D-Jetronic electronic fuel injection, introduced in

1968 and used through 1976 or so on various German and Swedish cars. Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, VW, etc. The only differences between that system and *scads* of early-mid '90s cars are minor:

-No closed-loop operation with D-Jet (no O2 sensor)

-Component design and construction differences (MAP sensors got smaller, engine position sensors got moved out of the distributor and over to the crank and/or camshaft)

The system's efficacy compared to carburetors was obvious not only in driveability, but also in emissions. In 1972, the Volvo 164's 3-litre inline Six was available either with twin emission-controlled Zenith CD carburetors, or with D-Jetronic. Engine idle spec for tuning: 2.5% exhaust CO with carburetors, 1.0% with D-Jet.

The D-Jet system was copied almost exactly by GM for much-ballyhooed installation on the '77 Cadillac Seville, to the point where several components interchange directly.

Following D-Jetronic was K-Jetronic released in 1973, which was a wholly mechanical fuel injection system. Feedback control with an O2 sensor was added for '77, and that system stayed in production, eventually gaining fullelectronic control, well into the 1990s.

It's not that EFI wasn't possible, it's that for the most part the US automakers just weren't interested in equipping their cars with it. They considered it too expensive, which was a shortsighted calculation: A new 1975 Volvo 240 with K-Jetronic had near-perfect driveability manners. A new 1975 almost-anything-made-in-the-US could not match the fuel injected cars' Instant starts hot or cold, no stumbles or sags or lean surge or any of the other problems suffered in spades by '70s carbureted systems. How much of the cost "savings" by staying with carburetors two decades too long do you suppose was pissed away in constant warranty comebacks for driveability faults and breakdown of the complex carburetor emission control add-ons, early engine failures due to ragged-edge lean carburetion, and customer goodwill forever lost? (Answer: More than all of it!)

Well...kinda both. There was a great deal of bad engineering coming from all over the world in 1970s cars. A very large proportion of it did come from US automakers. Part of it was simply due to learning curve progress: the task assigned was new! Much of it was indeed due to poorly-conceived and poorly-implemented regulations. Probably the biggest failure of the US Government was its refusal to permit the US automakers to form a consortium for research and development of emission control technology. Such consortiums existed to great universal benefit in Europe and Japan, but the US Feds objected to the idea on grounds it would violate antitrust laws. So, every automaker had to do his own R&D. A great deal of time, money and effort was wasted, and the trip through the learning curve was made considerably slower and more painful by that stupid refusal.

Not only was there this new task (clean up your cars' emissions!) but there were other new tasks (make your cars safer! Make 'em get better mileage, too!) and the old tasks (make 'em appealing so they sell!) hadn't gone away. At the same time, the '70s saw economic downturns that slowed up cashflow for US industry as a whole.

So, a great many factors went into causing the automotive situation we saw in the '70s. These are only a few of them.

False. The only such exemptions were for TRULY tiny cars like the Subaru 360 that idiot Malcolm Bricklin insisted on importing. The mainstream Japanese imports from Honda, Subaru, Toyota and Datsun were all subject to the same safety and emission regulations as everything Ford, GM, Chrysler and AMC sold.

That's true. Same goes for Mexico (they got on the bandwagon in '91).

That's true (Europe & Japan).

DS

I'm sure if you think about it for half a minute, you can come up with some concrete and quantifiable ways in which Americans are harder on vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. I know I can.

It seems I may indeed have missed that bit but how typical an example are you ?

I agree with your example. I was under the impresion however that many pickups in the US are likely to be more cosmetic in use than practical. A bit like a 'boy's toy' really. A kind of show-off 'life-style' vehicle. In some ways not unlike typical UK usage of 4x4s that almost never go offroad.

Graham

If anyone's interested, I can really recommend a late V4 version of Netscape ( like 4.9 ) for browsing text newsgroups. It does the job very well. No useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. Just simple plain functionality !

Graham

Generally perhaps. Although there seem to be some interesting variables there too. But I was trying to get to some comparison specifically about the typical usage of pick-ups.

Graham