Common parts cut car costs

I had one, and I can attest to that!

It's been a design "trick" all of them have used since the "horsepower race" of the '60s.

Chrysler, back in the '70s, at least DID attack the problem of "feather throttles" and changed the ratio considerably, and added heavier springs. Customers didn't like it, thinking the Chrysler cars were "slow," when in actuality they were every bit as "fast" as previous years' models.

I first saw this feature on Chryslers on the '76 Furies in our motor pool fleet. It seemed you had to really mash down on the throttle to get it going compared to other cars. However, the fuel consumption data told the tale well...these cars got 15% BETTER fuel economy than the previous years' examples of the same model with the by-then "traditional" hair trigger throttle. The reason? The driver had to WORK to open the throttle!

Reply to
DeserTBoB
Loading thread data ...

Colors are FINALLY coming back to interiors, after 20 years of mind-numbing grey, charcoal, and tan. An owner of a brand new Mustang GT parks right beside me every day, and both our cars have a beautiful deep red interior, almost exactly the same shade in fact. The difference is exactly 40 years- his is a 2006 Mustang, mine is a 1966 Dodge.

Reply to
Steve

And yet it is GM that failed to standardize. Chrysler abandoned 4 separate engine divisions that had few interchangeable parts (Chrysler, Dodge, DeSoto, and Plymouth) in 1958, and came out with a line of "corporate" engines used in all their car and truck lines- the B/RB big-block V8s, the A (and later LA) small-block V8s, and the G/RG slant-6 added in 1960. Ford did the same about the same time, abandoning separate Mercury, Lincoln, and Ford engine familes. But GM kept on with divisional engine plants, and in fact still has remnants of the practice. It reached its worst in the 70s when there were no less than 4 GM small-displacement v8s with no parts interchangeable among them (Chevy, Olds, Buick, Pontiac) and *5* big-block families with no interchangeable parts, including 4 that were within 1 cubic inch of the exact same size (Buick 455, Olds 455, Pontiac 455, Chevy 454, and Cadillac 472). Even today, there are two GM v8 familes- the Chevy-based Gen III v8s used in the trucks and Corvette, pluse the Cadillac Northstar v8 family. There are *three* v6 families all overlapping in size and power output- the Buick 3.8L, and the Chevy-derived 3.4 and

3.5L, and the Northstar-based OHC v6.

And we wonder why GM has been in financial trouble so long....

Reply to
Steve

No, all of the above is attributable to the 2.45 ratio rear-end that appeared around that time on Mopar fleet vehicles....

I know for damn sure that there's NOTHING different in the throttle linkage ratio of a between a 1970 2-barrel 318 and a 1989 2-barrel 318 (the last of the breed). And the span probably goes back a lot further than that.

Reply to
Steve

Not in this fleet. AT&T Long Lines had installed an extension to the throttle shaft belcrank and added a huge, garage door-like return spring. The big problem here was that the heavy spring pressure would wear out cable assemblies pretty quick. However, after the addition of these items in '76, gas mileage rose almost as much as complaints about "no power." Whether or not the different throttle arrangement came from Chrysler or not, I have no idea.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

Sigh

OK, here we go again.

Yes, depreciation doesen't mean anything if you buy the car new then own it until the wheels drop off In that case you can use the IRS tax depreciation curve which is very sharp, or construct your own gentle one, either way, you pay the same money.

But it means a huge amount if you sell it before it's completely worn out. Or, if you decide to do it the other way - meaning, buy an almost new car that has a small number of miles on it.

A typical new car today has about 200K miles of life in it. (well, barring some of the well known lemons)

If you buy it then drive it 100 miles down the road, realize oh shit I can't afford this, take it back then what?

You lose maybe $2000 or more, returning it. Probably a lot more because your getting out of it at the beginning of the sharp curve. That's depreciation.

If you drive it 150K miles then sell it you get maybe $500. If you don't sell it but just continue driving it until it hits 200K miles, then sell it, you will also get maybe $500.

In other words, those 50K extra miles you got cost you - nothing. Since your now at the end of the depreciation curve. Once more that's also depreciation.

Most people understand this. I guess you don't. Or, you have some other name for it other than depreciation. Since you seem to like to make spelling flames, your probably going to hit me with some other hair split. And, yes, these yours are deliberate - to bug you.

Lots of people have found that you don't need to lean them down to pass smog. It really depends on how new the cat is, how good the engine is, and many other variables.

Yah, I got that. I was just pointing out that the lack of a computer controlled carb, or a repair part for one, was not an excuse for getting rid of the car if it was still running. I also think you can get a smog variance if parts aren't available any longer.

Of course, if your just sick of driving the same thing and want to use that as an excuse to make yourself feel better about tossing a running car, go ahead. But, I thought the whole point of driving one of these cars way beyond it's original factory-estimated lifespan was to be able to say "f*ck you" to the factory "I ain't one of your dumb pigeons that is going to fit in the hole you decided for me" Seems to me that if you sell it before the body completely rusts away, that you are nothing more than just another one of the lemmings. ;-)

Very good point. But you forgot to mention also that those Standard EGR's have you peen in the selectable orifices, so you don't get many chances to try different sizes until the damn casting is so peened in that you can't get the orifice to stick in it anymore.

"Fuck you factory, I ain't one of your damn lemmings!!"

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

I also owned a 1978 510 and what a difference - good leg room with the seat all the way back. Amazing how they went backwards on the models they released a few years later.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

So then you both look like rolling brothels, eh? ;-)

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

The auto industry builds what (they think) will make them the most money and then marketing convinces customers that's what they want (or "need").

Reply to
Delfin Black

No, one's a Polara and one's a Mustang. Neither is a Lincoln, Cadillac DeVille, or Mercedes with 20-inch rims and blacked-out windows. Or a full-size van with red shag carpeting.

:-)

Reply to
Steve

But what need would I have to construct or use any depreciation curve if I buy a vehicle cash, operate it for 15 years and THEN sell it?

True, IF you're expecting "trade-in value," which most people seem to bank their futures on these days. To me, it's never been a selling point on any car. One thing were it does hit home, however...coverage value for comprehensive insurance claims. When my '92 Cad was totaled, I was rather pleased to receive "high book" for the car, and the book value was about $3K higher than I'd expected for that particular model. However, I don't make a habit of wrecking cars, or having them stolen. I leave the former up to my wife, who seems to have a penchant for doing so. It's also why I do most of the driving.

Then, the dealer smiles and offers low book for it as the buyer's only escape, vacuums the ashtray and floor mat, and sells it on the used lot for high used book.

True, one that's codified (proper usage here) by our tax law, as well. The civil court system almost everywhere, as well as the IRS and state tax franchise boards, still use the "KBB" as their standard of value. Whether or not the "Blue Book" has any basis in reality isn't a factor, since valuations stated in it lag sales by many months. With the KBB now being on line and delear input regarding sale prices being fed to them the same way, however, it seems Blue Book prices are now, more than ever before, reflecting actual market conditions, rather than arbitrary formulæ..

I understand depreciation schedules quite well. They're arbitrary, at best.

At least you're now aware of it, whereas before this, you obviously were not. People get very testy when their poor usage is exposed, but you do now think of it, don't you?!

That varies state to state. In California, they offer either $500 toward the cost of repairs (usually paying for a replacement cat) or $1000 to junk the car, and it's far more expensive in terms of bother and lost time to keep going back to the "smog referee" to get a variance than it is to either fix the problem or scrap the car. The program is designed now to get rid of any car that cannot pass dynamometer testing for HC, CO and NOx, regardless of repair costs. It's a tough program, but I notice a lot of the beaters running on 3 cylinders preferred by illegal aliens are fast disappearing off the roads, and Los Angeles hasn't had as many Stage 2 smog alert in the years since the program took effect.

That would be me...and, since we don't have rust out here, theoretically a car could, assuming a cache of essential parts, run forever, barring metal fatigue of the monocoque body structure..

I got lucky...I downsized by one "washer" size and hit the "sweet spot." The problem with those is some rather hay wired engineering. Although the diameter of the suggested "washer" was sized identically to the original Mopar part, the hole was through essentially a washer, not the thickness of the casting, as it was on the original. I figured that down sizing the "washer" orifice by a single size would do the trick, and I hit it the first time. However, had I had to make more than two or three changes, the lip around the countersunk area where the "washer" rests on the flange would have been useless.

What arched an eyebrow from me was that the downsizing had such a dramatic impact on HC and CO decreasing, while NOx barely crept up. The engine wasn't missing at all on the original sized orifice, and driveability was good. However, just by decreasing the exhaust stream a tiny bit made a world of difference, both in emissions and, to a lesser degree, power. The shop's multi-purpose dynamometer is calibrated in KW, and doing some quick calculation showed that the smaller orifice yielded 4 more net horsepower at the rear wheels at WOT at 3800 RPM. That's really a fairly big gain from a very small change in EGR orifice.

As if to disprove common lore that EGRs should routinely be disconnected, I did so, and found that my 4 HP gain simply evaporated. I also noted that the ECS II system was trying to lean out the mxture, and was "up against the stops" at 18% duty cycle, where before it was running around 40%. So much for hayseeds who think smog controls are a communist plot to make thier cars run "worser."!

The more I read about mishaps with OBD II cars in here and elsewhere, I say exactly the same thing! While owners of new DC cars are scratching their heads to figure out what those codes mean, or trying to figure out why they're getting weird shift problems caused by their TCMs, I'm out driving with good economy and legal exhaust...as well as very low parts costs.

A side benefit is that the profile of the old M-body seems to instill fear in kids driving little rice boxes. One asked me recently if it was an "undercover cop car," although M-bodies haven't been in any police fleets I know of in over 15 years.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

Lee Iacocca disputed this notion years ago, but did admit that the "concept to showroom" lead time for US cars was unacceptably long. Chrysler (before Daimler) was the only US manufacturer to make significant headway on this problem when Iacocca insisted on building the Belvidere Design Center, cutting lead design time down to as little as 18 months. GM probably still has the longest lead time to market of the Big 3, thanks to their inbred, unmovable corporate culture.

Ford is making progress (the now well-selling Fusion was a two year project) but doesn't seem to be taking full advantage of it. Whether Mulally can shake off the demons of Ford family control of Dearborn remains to be seen. I really think Bill Ford, Jr. tried to speed things up, as his remarks about the "new" Mustang showed, but he didn't have the managerial ability and/or was probably held back by making too many changes by Ford family constraints. Blood's thicker than water with that bunch for sure, as was exemplified by William Clay Ford's neglect of doing anything about his obviously out-of-control brother, King Henry II, while Ford was swirling down the crapper around 1980.

Once King Henry was out of the way, Ford struck gold with the Taurus/Sable, and to a lesser extent, the Tempo/Topaz. The former was a really good design that covered all bases (except, perhaps, reliability), while the latter wasn't very well engineered at all, but sold in big numbers due to interior room. What Ford did with the Taurus, however, was cover a market slot that Chrysler had been trying to fill with "EEK" car stretches of the original K-car, somewhat unsuccessfully. By then, the legacy of Roger Smith had just about killed off GM, and they were already in decline with "badge engineered" cars that didn't really do anything well. Iacocca hated the Taurus (probably out of jealousy), calling it "the potato car." Within two years, though, he was "potatoing" his "EEK" cars to try to compete!

Reply to
DeserTBoB

The original PL-510, "the box," did have one thing that amazed people back in the early '70s, besides its long lived OHC engine....ride, courtesy of independent rear suspension. I believe Datsuns were the first with IRS in an economy car, aside from the Corvair with its swing axles that doomed it. Honda's attempts later weren't nearly as successful in terms of a nice, well controlled ride, and were notoriously "choppy."

Seating comfort in the original 510 wasn't as good as the second series though, and interiors were de rigeur for the era...cheesy plastic and pseudo-vinyl with rubber floor mats. Paint was abysmal in comparison to US cars as well, and most Datsuns (and Toyotas) from that era would have chalked, oxidized paint in two years without judicious waxing and garaging. By the end of the '70s, they had that problem fixed as well, and were in position to really start eating Big

3 sales.

Another Datsun that rode really well...the "luxury" 610, circa '72-'76. I actually saw a '74 610 coupe running down the road the other day...battered, but still going, with no blue smoke. Biggest loser for Nissan in that era was the solid rear axle 710, of which I haven't seen one in at least 20 years...ugly styling, bad ride, indifferent handling, but the good L20B OHC engine. It seemed in that era that Nissan was concentrating on mechanical reliability (which has been proven to be prodigious) while Toyota was concentrating on "features" and creature comforts. The early Celicas, while hot sellers, were mechanically unsound, with exhaust valves frying at 30K miles in the 18RC engine and other screw-ups like too-soft motor mounts.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

Don't forget the heart shaped "bed" and the fountain! Also included must be a teensy welded chain steering wheels and a beer tap shift knob.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

If you're so smart, why are you using "smoke and mirrors", a term that I used all the time...and you copied.

You didn't even know what an EGR valve WAS, until I told you what they did here on Usenet. And the best thing to do is, DISCONNECT THEM. Esp. on old cars.

You tore down an ENTIRE 318 Mopar motor, looking for cause of overheating, when you actually had a stuck thermostat !

You know SHIT about depreciation- if someone buys a new car, and uses it for business purposes, they get to WRITE OFF the cost of that car each year, and NOT PAY TAXES on the income used to pay for that car. So if they are in a 30% tax bracket, the GOVERNMENT basically picks up

30% of the cost of the car in the long run- you DUMB ASS.
Reply to
duty-honor-country

Ted,

"DeserTBob" actually owns and drives a 1978 HONDA.

He is unemployed, and has a bogus SSI scam going, where he sits home and collects checks.

Anything you "prove" to him in an argument here, he will "osmose" and use in a later argument, as if he knew it all along- he's a DUMB ASS who has become accustomed to learning through insult and argument on Usenet. A PATHETIC LOSER.

His recent posts of EGR's and depreciation are gleaned info he just LEARNED from a flame war he was in 2 weeks ago.

See how he works ?? All of a sudden, he's an expert at accounting, cars, engines, you name it.

Reply to
duty-honor-country

give it up Bob- no one's replying to your SSI-sucking posts...

Reply to
duty-honor-country

this is charley nudo from drums, pa. he's mad that bob ruined his ebay scam business and now is disrupting news groups every where he is. turn his fat stupid ass in to snipped-for-privacy@google.com to have this his current google accounts shut down. they have shut down about 15 of them so far and he still does not learn.

Reply to
=ViPeR=

this is charley nudo from drums, pa. he's mad that bob ruined his ebay scam business and now is disrupting news groups every where he is. turn his fat stupid ass in to snipped-for-privacy@google.com to have this his current google accounts shut down. they have shut down about 15 of them so far and he still does not learn.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

Hey posting this as "=ViPeR=" is enough. Any more of this and I'll KILL both of you.

Reply to
Some O

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.