Another car questions + opinions

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by MadMan

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.

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.

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.

Your in Ill where thay have that dopey law that prevents sale of gas not refined in Ill driving up the price...Here regular was $2.33 last I checked.

[init4fun]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

Your in Ill where thay have that dopey law that prevents sale of gas not refined in Ill driving up the price...Here regular was $2.33 last I checked.

Yea , he's getting hosed , here in eastern Ma. where the gas is considered pricey compared to the national average we are just a bit below $2.50 .

[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.

[Telecolor 3007]

In Bucharest, before we got to much cars (there are too many for the infrastructure... in the city there it should be no more then half a milion motor vehicles, but they are arleady one million) you could find old small gas stations that are gone now. The gas probably wasn't of the best qualty, but old cars had the advantage of not beeing squeamish on low qualty fuel.
Romanian greasing oil was bad... if you did 4,000 miles with it was good.
But why in U.S.A. automatic gearboxes gained so much power? In Europe they still aren't common... more expensive and there is still the myth that a car with automatic transmisions swallows up more fuel (probably the ones with hydraulic transmision are do, but in today's the difference of compsumtion isn't so big). And there are some idiotic sayings about automatic gearboxes (even about the ones that offer manual control too). The bad thing is that in Romania I don't know if some one can make a good reapair at automatic gearboxes... not even old style ones, let alone modern ones. I wonder how they would deal with a preselector gerabox (classic command, not electropneumatic command).

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

But why in U.S.A. automatic gearboxes gained so much power? In Europe they still aren't common... more expensive and there is still the myth that a car with automatic transmisions swallows up more fuel (probably the ones with hydraulic transmision are do, but in today's the difference of compsumtion isn't so big).

Even people here say the same things and have the same preconceptions about automatic gearboxes. The thing is, we Americans really do enjoy our creature comforts. If we spend a little more on gas and don't have to be bothered with shifting, most of us will do it. It also goes back to America being a BIG ol' country, and lots of us are in our cars for long periods of time. So anything that'll make that easier for us, we'll do.

I'm sure I've said this before, but all those preconceived notions about automatics are from a long time ago. Just in the same way that people today will tell you not to put a car battery on a cold concrete floor - something that you shouldn't have done with metal-cased batteries from 100 years ago - it's an old wive's tale now. Actually most automatics - even hydraulic ones - generally get almost the same gas mileage as a manual in the same car. And an automatic will usually not require service before the same car with a manual needs a clutch.

Also, most of the early automatics in American cars were pretty reliable. Think Powerglide (they still make them today for drag racers!), Hydramatic, Torqueflite, and Ford's C6. The last three were being put in new cars and trucks from the 60s ALL the way up until the 2000s. So reliability was pretty much always there for us, that kind of eliminates one of the major reasons someone would pick a manual instead.

[Telecolor 3007]

But what was the ideea with the batteries?
I thought in U.S.A. those preconceptions where gone since automatic becamed dominant in the '60's. It's true that an automatic gearbox is more complicated then a manual one (or even an pure mechanical preselector) so the fear of the costs is justified.
Buses used for public transportation by S.T.B. (former R.A.T.B.) - the service transport owned by the Municipality are all automatic gearboxed. Last manual gerabox buses from Bucharest went out of service in 2007-2008... and unfourtnley 99,9% went scraped in stad of servin other cities
Oh, another myth is that vehicles with automatic gearboxes are slow... it was true for the old ones. But the "D.A.F." SB220 * buses introduced in 1994 (all pull over, none of those beauties is in a good shape ) where pretty faster and they had automatic gearboxes. And that was a quarter of century ago. The bus drivers where doing races on Kiseleff Road (Avenue) in the night when went to the garage. Oh, and in pure conditions those gearboxes lasted sometimes even a milion kilometers!!!
In U.S.A. you can get driving licence for automatic gearbox and drive what you like. In Romania (and not only) if you're getting a lincence for automatic gearboxes you're stick to automatic, you don't have the legal right to drive manual gearboxes. Also in Romania there is no option for getting driving licence for only automatic gerabox if you want to drive a truck (I don't about buses).

* in fact "D.A.F." made only the chassie, the axle and the steering. The engines where made by "M.A.N." (Germany), the gearbox by "Voith" (Germany), the body was made in Spain or Greece and the seats in... Romania.

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

But what was the ideea with the batteries?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDR43E5Uxw4
I thought in U.S.A. those preconceptions where gone since automatic becamed dominant in the '60's.[/QUOTE]
lol people still say all those things, but go ahead and drive automatics, anyway. Of course, there are still a few people who will only drive a manual.

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

Oh, another myth is that vehicles with automatic gearboxes are slow... it was true for the old ones. But the "D.A.F." SB220 * buses introduced in 1994 (all pull over, none of those beauties is in a good shape ) where pretty faster and they had automatic gearboxes. And that was a quarter of century ago. The bus drivers where doing races on Kiseleff Road (Avenue) in the night when went to the garage. Oh, and in pure conditions those gearboxes lasted sometimes even a milion kilometers!!!

That's cool! Modern automatics - like, from the 60s onward - didn't have much power loss. Obviously, some would be better than others. Most of that comes down to how much slip there is in the torque converter. Early converters did not have the middle piece... the stator, I think. Without it, there is a lot of slip, and therefore power loss. Now, of course, we have lock-up converters, which depending on when they are commanded to lock up, give direct connection from the engine to the wheels, so no slip. I wonder what type of gearbox those buses had. I wonder if the Voith gerabox is the European equivalent to the Allison? Hell, there might be some Allison gearboxes over there.

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

In U.S.A. you can get driving licence for automatic gearbox and drive what you like. In Romania (and not only) if you're getting a lincence for automatic gearboxes you're stick to automatic, you don't have the legal right to drive manual gearboxes. Also in Romania there is no option for getting driving licence for only automatic gerabox if you want to drive a truck (I don't about buses).

I believe there are 1 or 2 states that require a different license to drive manual.

[Telecolor 3007]

Yes, the stator. My British dream cars don't have a stator, because in the '30-'50's
"Voith" I think they are good. At least they lasted on the buses. "ZF" also makes automatic gearboxes. Oh, the Romanian "Rocar" with "de Simon" type body also used "Voith" gearboxes.
On the interior on the "D.A.F." buses was and advert for "Voith" on which was among other image of a truck. I don't think in Romanian back in those days where trucks with automatic geraboxes, so I was in state of wondering.

[Sandy G]

Hmmmmmpf... Looked like the Caddy coulda been driven home.. Don't think it even spiderwebbed the windshield... The little Japanese car got pretty well "Woofed", though... Guy in the Caddy mighta had to take a handful or so of Advils or Ibuprofens, but not much worse than that. Guy in the Japanese car might have had a broken knee, leg, ankle, but mighta also got outta it unscathed.. Bottom line-You're likely STILL safer in a Big-Azz Tankus Americanus, at least a newer version, but the little pregnant rollerskate mini-cars are MUCH better than they were, even not so long ago..

[Telecolor 3007]

That Japanese car done quite good on the impact. I've seen newer cars doing worser then that.
But do you know any one one who ownes a pre 1956 automobile?
I looked on that 1921 automobile book... thought greasing at 500 miles is stressing (one of my British dream cars do require greasing at 500 miles)... well, some cars did need greasing and oiling at daily/at 100 miles back then! Shees, owning an automobile was quite a pain.
It's true that Henry Ford couldn't drive cars with crash gearboxes?

[MadMan]

On the old Buick valve-in-head (overhead valve) engines, the valve gear was out in the open. You actually had to manually oil all the rocker arms with an oil can... probably every day. Of course that was in the 1920s I think.

As for British cars, not to stereotype, but it does rain a lot there. They probably recommended greasing often to keep all the rainwater out of the joints. My guess, anyway.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by MadMan

On the old Buick valve-in-head (overhead valve) engines, the valve gear was out in the open. You actually had to manually oil all the rocker arms with an oil can... probably every day. Of course that was in the 1920s I think.

As for British cars, not to stereotype, but it does rain a lot there. They probably recommended greasing often to keep all the rainwater out of the joints. My guess, anyway.

The later Buick Fireball OHV engines were fully self-oiling. Coldwarmotors youtube channel has a fairly entertaining Straight-8 showdown series where they take a 1950 Buick and 1951? Packard both decades-old junkyard cars with stuck Straight-8s and get both going and yard race them on basically $0 budget and you get to see a good bit of the inner-workings of both.

To add to your point of the greasing recommendation being possibly excessive...If the documentation Telecolor is reading is from several decades ago (as I think it is) then it likely is from a time period when grease/lubrication products were primative and MUCH LESS effective/long lived then current products.

[Telecolor 3007]

Or because the greasing points wheren't sealed. Take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBO_ee96tY0&t=186s

[MadMan]

All of the above, I think.

[Telecolor 3007]

What you can sometimes find for sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Daimler-193...-/311666331293