Another car questions + opinions

[KentTeffeteller]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

Today's "Mercedes" are just a pice of ugliness. No style, just made for people who just want to impress with the name of the brand.
Very old models at least if they whreren't in the had the looks, they had the reability of the brand.
The W123 (a.k.a "Cobra" in Romania) had a certain look (not very beatiful, bot not ugly), but for sure it was good car worth of the brand's name.
In Bucharest there are 2 x 380SL. Both automatic transimision. In terms of look... not only does they do have the appeal, but the overpass any of today's model.
I'm not such a big fan of the brand, but the very old models from them for sure where good. And W123 was a very wade range of cars. Today's cars don't seem so versatile in terms of options.

U.S.A. cars had one problem I think: to big engines. I agree that outside densly populated areas, in U.S.A. (or Canada or even Mexico) you can't go with small engine cars like in Europe. So a 3-4 liters (maybe 5 if you want a really big car or a pick-up truck) is needed, but when you put as a standard a 5-6 liters engine is arelady too much in the late '60's.
But do you have any ideea, what where the most relaible U.S.A brands up to the '50's?
You needed oil change only because you migh had leaks or also because the qualty of the oil wasn't so good back then - plain mineral oil, no aditives.
If you want to run a classic car I've heard that you must be careful, at least here in Europe, because they put Ethanol on it and very old cars don't like it.

Here is something to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-a...c_transmission

And let's not forget about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTZeP5f20PA

http://hudsonterraplane.com/tech/193...ndTechInfo.pdf

US cars had big engines, because they were driven on Interstate and rural highways, longer distances, and were so large and heavy. And speed limits then were anywhere from 60-75 MPH. Remember, from Johnson City, Tennessee to Memphis, Tennessee is bigger than Romania. It's in excess of 600 miles East to West.

[Telecolor 3007]

Even shorter than Bucharest - Tessaloniki (Greece), which is under 500 miles. Gush, for such long distance I would ride only a big car or the train.

[Sandy G]

That's what people-And foreigners, often-Never seem to realize- or understand-America is a BIG damn place. Tennessee, my state, if you folded it over at the northeastern tip, Memphis would be somewhere out in the Atlantic ocean.. And Tennessee really isn't all THAT big..I left home one morning to see a gal graduate from RN-nursing school-it was about 6.30 in the morning, & we drove to Memphis... We got there about 2.30-3PM...10, 11 hours, & we never left Tennessee !

[old_tv_nut]

Back when I was honestly employed (no remarks!) our Korean colleagues wanted to do a signal survey of the new HDTV broadcasts in cities across the US. They announced they were planning to spend a week or less. I couldn't get them to understand the impracticality until I sent them a map of the continental US with a map of South Korea to the same scale superimposed. The project quickly condensed to a couple of cities.

I suggest that any one contemplating a cross-US trip make such a map with their own country superimposed to scale over the US map to let the full import sink in.

Similarly, one of our Korean colleagues stationed in Illinois decided to vacation by driving his family across country in a rented motor home - they got as far as Utah, turned in the RV and flew back.

This is not meant to discourage anyone, just to encourage planning realistically.

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by bgadow

Certainly if you didn't drive the car much and the gas had to sit for months, you're asking for trouble.

I mean, you're asking for trouble, anyway, if you do that. Interesting, though. Still, I'm certain that any new parts are ethanol friendly by now.

Originally Posted by Electronic M

I've heard that many of the inline slant 6 engines were longer lived than most of the V8s available.

Well in the 60s, most of the straight six's you had were basically pre-WW2 designs with minor updates. They were built like brick shithouses. People like to say the old Chevy stovetop was mechanically unable to over-rev.

Then Chrysler came out with the slant six, which was a thoroughly modern engine. Nascar decided to have a 6 cylinder economy car race. Ford and Chevy just raced some off-the-rack 6 cylinders, which were those ancient designs. Chrysler actually had their racing department work on the slant six for the race. 7 Dodges/Plymouths were in the race. They beat the pants off of Chevy and Ford, taking the first 7 places by a long shot. The race was so boring, they decided to never do it again.

Also, a friend of mine who used to buy and sell a lot of cars back in the day told me a story once about a Chrysler slant six. He said the car was going to the junk yard, so he decided to blow the engine just for fun. He said it took a good 10 minutes of over-revving it to do it in. That's insane!

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

300 cubic inches... that's almost 5 liters (5,000 cubic centimeters). It was underpowered?

Well consider that most of those straight six motors were very old design, and also because they were the 'cheap' engine option, they usually only had a small single barrel carburetor. I'm sure you could get better performance out of a motor like that now, either with a better carb or fuel injection.

[Sandy G]

There is a book I would HIGHLY recommend to anyone who is even marginally interested in cars in reading-"Truck", by a chap named John Jerome. It is the story of the trials & tribulations of a guy who buys & semi-restores a 1949 Dodge half ton pickup. He basically just gets it to use on his farm in New Hampshire, not for making a show truck out of. It was written in the early Seventies, it has some "New Age"post hippie-era jibberish, but still is a pretty good read. Jerome is/was a native Texan, also was an editor for one of the national car magazines, so he speaks w/quite a bit of authority. A small book, it doesn't take long to read, & its one of those books that kinda makes you feel good after you read it. I'm sure its LONG outta print, but it might be available at some online source, like EVERYTHING else is...

[Telecolor 3007]

But why in the early '60's they didn't designed a engine that would be a little more modern and offer a liitle more power at let's say 50 cubic inches less then the models of engines that where still existing.
On a YouTube video some one noticed that the Americans where among the 1st to put fuel injection on cars (Germans had that too), but other went ahead of the Americans.
For long distance I like the trains. I would like to be direct trains from Bucharest to Paris and Berlin (from Paris I can go to London) with sleeping cars and individual shower room (there are this kind of sleeping cars), but no chance... well, there are direct trains from Viena to Berlin (you can go with train from Bucharest to Viena), but to Paris no. Probably I will have to step on my princeples and get into a plane.
Getting back to automobiles, well, some of them still have theyr fans outside U.S.A. or the Americas. Same as British cars, through all there in Europe there is mania with German cars (except with some countries), some Italian cars and maybe some French cars. There where when "F.I.A.T." (Italy) licesend car production to U.S.S.R., Poland, Austria, Spain...

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

But why in the early '60's they didn't designed a engine that would be a little more modern and offer a liitle more power at let's say 50 cubic inches less then the models of engines that where still existing.
On a YouTube video some one noticed that the Americans where among the 1st to put fuel injection on cars (Germans had that too), but other went ahead of the Americans.
For long distance I like the trains. I would like to be direct trains from Bucharest to Paris and Berlin (from Paris I can go to London) with sleeping cars and individual shower room (there are this kind of sleeping cars), but no chance... well, there are direct trains from Viena to Berlin (you can go with train from Bucharest to Viena), but to Paris no. Probably I will have to step on my princeples and get into a plane.
Getting back to automobiles, well, some of them still have theyr fans outside U.S.A. or the Americas. Same as British cars, through all there in Europe there is mania with German cars (except with some countries), some Italian cars and maybe some French cars. There where when "F.I.A.T." (Italy) licesend car production to U.S.S.R., Poland, Austria, Spain...

Fuel injection in the 50s and 60's was expensive, complicated and unreliable...the only ones with the patience and money to want to maintain it were drag racers and others involved in motor sports....of the few production cars optioned with it back then many were converted to carburetors as soon as the injection failed.

As mentioned above Chrysler did bother to make a more modern engine fairly early.... Ignoring the Chevy corvair(and GM senior compacts), Studebaker Lark, Nash 600 and Metropolitan, and Ford Falcon and Crosley brand cars (which in the 50s went under just like American Bantam did a decade earlier) American auto makers were not concerned with making smalll efficient cars till the 70s. The concerns were price (the main reason Pre-WWII engines were made for so long), features and comfort.

[Telecolor 3007]

But the modern engines where a little bit more economic?
I've heard that the focus mainly on price was something that affected in a bad way the American industry.

[compu_85]

I've seen that caddy vs. datsun crash test before... the view from inside the datsun where the caddy's front end dives is really striking. Whenever traffic comes to a stop on the DC beltway I'm looking behind me for a car nose diving... I've seen it a few times, thankfully I haven't been clobbered.

-J

[zeno]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

But the modern engines where a little bit more economic?
I've heard that the focus mainly on price was something that affected in a bad way the American industry.

Modern engines cost much more. When you wanted power you just
made them bigger & poured more gas in the old days!
Keep in mind Americans loved straight line preformance. We didnt care
about going fast around corners. Most cars were built so you could go
fast WITHOUT much feel of the road. A "cloud like ride" or "sitting on your
sofa".
Motors were for the most part very reliable. The average new car buyer
kept it 4 yrs, apx 80K miles. The new owners often ran them up to
150-200 K miles. By then the car was eaten by rust but the drive line
was still good. New car reliability is more to do with better small parts IMHO.
We used to constantly change hoses, belts, plugs, starters, etc. It never
ended BUT was easy to do & cheap. Most the time you could get home
then deal with it......

73 Zeno
LFOD !

[Telecolor 3007]

To be onest, I like cars that can be easily repaired/fixed. Too much electronics aren't good. After all it's car, not a space ship.

@ compu85 : what crash?

[Sandy G]

There's also a video where a 1959-60 model 4 door Chevy gets smacked in the front by a more modern car. It made me SICK not only because the crash test dummies got a real workout-bouncing around all over the car, but because the Shivverlay looked to initially be in really good shape... Then when the impact happened, you saw all the RUST comin' out from everywhere.. The body, IIRC, deformed pretty badly too, not necessarily on account of the rust. We've all heard those older cars were built tougher & could "Take It".. Well the Chevy pretty much folded up like a Cheap Suit.. But, in '57, GM scrapped their decades old double channel frame design, that had 2 side members going from the front of the car to the tail end, in favor of a centrally mounted frame that provided little or no protection in collision, its basic duty was to allow designers to lower the overall height of the car...Some GM divisions didn't want to use the design, since it was felt it wasn't safe, & indeed in 1965 GM went back to on their "Big" cars to the double channel frame design that they'd used before..

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

But why in the early '60's they didn't designed a engine that would be a little more modern and offer a liitle more power at let's say 50 cubic inches less then the models of engines that where still existing.

Actually, the early 60s were a time when engines were very powerful and (reasonably) efficient. Higher compression ratios were common, and new(ish) technologies were being employed. Like hydraulic valve lifters, hemispherical combustion chamber (Hemi!), overhead valves, small blocks (making big displacement motors physically smaller), etc. But then catalytic converters became mandatory and kind of ruined the power (and efficiency) numbers of engines in the 60s.

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

But the modern engines where a little bit more economic?
I've heard that the focus mainly on price was something that affected in a bad way the American industry.

Well focus on the bottom line sometimes does make problems. But normally competition drives companies to find new ways to make things simpler, and therefore cheaper.

As for efficiency, gas was cheap back in the day. Even if it wasn't quite as cheap as you might imagine, people didn't care, they just kept filling up. The economy must have been better back then. To be fair, gas is still pretty cheap in America compared to... literally most other countries in the world. It's probably about $3.00 per gallon (~4L) where I'm at, right now. And people complain about the price. But then you go to Europe and it's probably two or three times that. So fuel economy really was not a pressing issue. Hell, it still isn't, really, but people here like to imagine that it is.

Originally Posted by Sandy G

There's also a video where a 1959-60 model 4 door Chevy gets smacked in the front by a more modern car. It made me SICK not only because the crash test dummies got a real workout-bouncing around all over the car, but because the Shivverlay looked to initially be in really good shape... Then when the impact happened, you saw all the RUST comin' out from everywhere..

I've seen that video. I think the obvious frame rust played a major part in that, but also, most cars back then were not as tank-like as people see in their rose-tinted hindsight goggles. Those cars were big on the outside, but sort of hollow on the inside. Modern cars are much more densely packed.

[Telecolor 3007]

1st emission regulation where introduced in California in 1966.
Yes, gas was cheap back then and probably no one thought that they shoul reduce cosumption of fuel.
There where day when in Romania with a minimal wage you could but around 400-480 U.S. gallons of fuel! But cars where very expensive then. Dern, even with most streets in not very good shape you could go from one end of Bucharest to the other in no more then 30-40 minutes. And since there wheren't so many cars, fuel economy was grater. In the early '70's gas was becoming more costly, but it wasn't so expensive up untill 1977-1979. Most cars around here could do 16-24 m.p.g. back in the day. And we had (no very big) busses with V8 gas engines (and trucks too!).
In Romania price for gas is around 3.80-4 U.S. Dollars per U.S. gallon. In U.S. there are areas where I heard there is even around 4.50 U.S.D. per U.S. gallon, but you know, in U.S.A. 800-1000 dollars is a small wage, here the same sallary is big.