- This topic has 28 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
[quote=”Dizplay” post=154493]I reckon newer cars are “better”. They are more reliable, comfortable, economical and they don’t rust as much. I feel like a lot of people forget about the rust thing… newer cars don’t seem to rust as much. Another thing people like to complain about is how newer cars are difficult to work on – times have changed, so have the tools you need to repair cars. Gone are the days where old Dave from down the road was fixing 1960s Fords with a hammer and a few bent screwdrivers.
To me, anything that came standard with fuel injection and ABS is a modern car. I was born in 1994 and drive a 2000 year car.[/quote]
You can galvanize the older metal to solve the rust problem, or just keep it out of salt.[quote=”andrewbutton442″ post=154600]Here is my thought on Resto mods, since I actually did that whole routine over a decade ago here was my feelings. A car from the 1960s is what I did, and it wasn’t a good drivetrain I removed, but it wasn’t horrible either. Just basic 60s boringness. After all the the work and money dumped in it, I would do it over again with something much older, say 30s 40s or 50s, because a lot of those antique cars have unservicable, antiquated running gear that makes a vehicle scrap metal without a drive train extraction and replacement. I would leave the dirty patina on it and run it daily. There isn’t a mechanic in the world who cannot keep a 60s or 70s car on the road with a bent screwdriver, however to have something like an ancient Packard or something weird like that with modern parts I feel would much more rewarding. Just my two cents worth.[/quote]
The 50s stuff had the most character of any decade. My 1955 with it’s straight 6 and manual 3 speed will outlive anything made after it. Of course, it’s delegated to show duty only, but it’s timeless classic rugged design stood the test of time.there are some points that i will agree that the newer cars of a better build quality, stuff from the 80s and 70s where of horrible quality, nothing fit right, everything seemed to be junk, and in the earlier years you where lucky to see a car that lasted 100,000 miles, transmissions where geared lower, so going down the road means the engine is turning at about 3,000RPM so your bearings don’t last as long, your rings back in the day weren’t made of as good of a material, and from what i have been told the carburetor enriched the air fuel mixture too much on start up during cold winters and soaked the rings pre maturely wearing them out.
but some things cannot be ignored, there are older engines that are well know that no engine today can hold a coin too as far as durability, the jeep 4.0, the Chevy small block 350 of specific builds, the ford 300 straight six, and of coarse the GM 3800 Buick 231 V6, all these engines had pretty much one thing in common, Cast iron blocks, cast iron heads…
Ford doesn’t have a engine that is as tough as the old 300 straight six, my grandpa told me despite being a GM employee he preferred the Ford trucks for the better turning radios, and the straight six 300 which with simple maintenance lasted forever! the Jeep 4.0 aside form having some casting issues with the heads and broken pistons at times was a tough engine that could see much abuse and high miles, it was a fitting engine for a durable offroad vehicle. the Chevy 350 is far more durable than any of the V8 engines that GM really has to offer anymore, and of coarse speaking from experience, aside from lower intake manifold gasket leaks and coolant elbows which i am sure where planned by GM to fail in attempt to shorten the life of the engine, the 3800 could have the hell beaten out of it, abused, and it just kept on running, just as long as you don’t put it away wet, expect 500,000 with stock head gaskets and internals before it finally decides to spin a rod bearing.
I would love to see how this new POS 2.7 twin turbo V6 POS they have stoved into the new F-150 even try to stack up too the 300 straight six, 302, 351 windsor, 460… some day we will be getting pattern failures for warped valves, broken head gaskets, or warn out main and rod bearings on those junk heap excuses for a replacement for the Triton V8s, and as far as i see it, i don’t see the new high valve V6s, the 3.5L and 3.9L being as tough as the 3800 was, not a chance, those engines are going to be just like the 3400 was, a junk heap that blew head gaskets because its aluminum heads warped over time due to different expansion rates compared to the block and heads.
to me its plain and simple, i agree, yes some of the cars where just junk, but some of the cars, particularly the engines where built to last, now they build everything to just throw away like used paper plates, rather than wash them and use them again.
and why do they get rid of the older stuff? “because we need to save weight.” “Because its more economical.”
BULLCRAP!! Because it lasts too long! example, the 3800 V6, they god rid of it because the new high valve V6s and high output ecotec inline 4 engines could put out the same power, but where lighter, and more economical. REALITY! the 3800 despite having a cast iron block and heads is only roughly 20LBS Heavier than its “Modern counterparts.” there excuse is its a older designed engine that is less economical!
another example, the current engine that replaces the 3800 is the 3900, the GM 3900 is a 60 degree V6 engine rated at something like 235HP, vs the modest 205 of the 3800, how does it get this power? first of all it has a variable intake runner set up which closes valves forcing air to flow through long narrow runners at low revs, and then opens up the valves to large short runners at high revs, it has a more modern ignition system, fuel injection, and 10-1 compression, it also has two upstream 02 sensors that monitor air fuel mixtures for each bank of cylinders, while the 3800 series III L-26 still features though aluminum plenum, the same intake manifold runners long and narrow, with only slightly larger intake and exhaust ports in comparison too the series II L-36, the engine only has a 9-1 compression ratio, and only a single upstream 02 sensor monitoring air fuel mixture for both banks of cylinders, it would be super easy to change the design of the heads for better flow, install variable intake runners, and add direct ignition, and bump the compression up to 10-1, add better fuel injection, and have two upstream 02 sensors so it could monitor both banks of cylinders rather than just one more precisely. the end result would be the engine would be more fuel economic, and have a similar if not better power rating than the 3900, the issue is… the engine would still be far tougher than the 3900, as the 3900 has aluminom heads, with pretty much the same cast iron block as the 3100 and 3400 SFI…
[quote=”13aceofspades13″ post=155207]and why do they get rid of the older stuff? “because we need to save weight.” “Because its more economical.”
BULLCRAP!! Because it lasts too long! [/quote]
True, GM eventually got tired of the ever reliable 350, as Ford got rid of the bulletproof 300. The Chevy straight six I have is the same engine GM made from 1941-1987. Of course, it was killed off as well. These “archaic” engines, were very simple. well made and withstood the test of time. So much so that they were killed off by their makers, because durability is not profitable.
Aluminum blocks and heads will not last. You overheat them once and they are toast. The molecular structure of Aluminum does not allow Aluminum to withstand the same abuse iron can. The tolerances and allowances on aluminum are tighter as well.
On top of this, you lose more heat with aluminum and to compensate, the compression ratio must be raised.
Don’t even get my started on 8-10 speed auto transmissions.I was just noticing yesterday how much thicker the sheet metal is on my 95 F350 compared to my 05 Silverado z71. You can feel a difference in the way the doors shut. I soo much prefer the Ford. It just seems better made in every way. Now the Chevy rides smoother and is much quieter but it just doesn’t feel like it will last. Another thing is when the ford breaks it doesn’t catastrophically fail. For instance before Christmas I made a 5 hour drive to the Outer Banks with my family. About 50 miles into the trip the right front wheel bearing started howling. I stopped pull the center cap and checked the bearing preload….It was sloppy to say the least. I grabbed a socket tightened it back down slighty and drove the rest of the way back to the beach. One the way I called the parts store by our house there and had them put the bearing and the seal on hold…All of the parts were at the store. Made it to the house bearing howling all the way. Fixed it the next day….$39, One hour to fix it (And I was taking my time) Only needed common tools….Once I got home I made sure the preload was right with my in/lbs beam wrench
Juxtapose the Silverado. Driving one day, without any warning The drivers side front bearing started grinding. Within one mile it totally failed stranding me. Had to call a tow truck and get the truck towed home. Unit bearing was not at the part store…Had to wait. Started pulling the old unit. It had heated up in the spindle and gotten stuck. I had to heat and slide hammer the crap out of it to remove the old bearing house. Took me almost 3 hours of struggling. Had to clean the spindle, paint it where it had rusted, etc. New part was $180 for the Timken unit. Took shop tools to fix. Bearing failed 40,000 miles latter. Truck is currently on the 4th set of unit bearings.
Just seems like the older generation stuff on trucks was more robust and easier to fix. I know the unit bearings they use now are junk. Go check out the offroad trails. Guys aren’t using unit bearings. If unit bearing were so good than how is Dynatrac selling conversion kits for so much…And making money. I think that of all the new stuff unit bearing are a place that you can point to as something that is without a doubt inferior to the old spindle bearing stuff.
because trucks today are for yuppy city boys that want to look cool driving their “Truck.” trucks during the 80s and early 90s where built for the intended use…. WORK! they where meant to be beaten on and driven over rough terrain and haul heavy loads, i remember carpet and interrior lining being a OPTION! you got a metal painted interrior, bench seats with simple fabric, because you where getting in that truck with mud, and horse crap on your boots!
Trucks had V8s or straight six engines with moderate power ratings because they where intended to take a beating, not get gas mileage, because they where used buy workers and farmers to haul, and load things all the time, not just once in a while… not just for taking a long road trip with a boat, it was meant to haul a load of wood out of a field, with a box full of fire wood in the back! not trying to look cool to the rest of your city boy friends and cheep bar one night stands saying ” I DWIVE A TWUK!”
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=155384]
Don’t even get my started on 8-10 speed auto transmissions.[/quote]Thats ok i already know the answer, over complex and more parts to fail, nothing wrong with having a off road vehicle or truck with a simple four speed auto or better yet a stick. but we have to try to get better fuel economy in vehicles never intended for fuel economy.
[quote=”13aceofspades13″ post=155419][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=155384]
Don’t even get my started on 8-10 speed auto transmissions.[/quote]Thats ok i already know the answer, over complex and more parts to fail, nothing wrong with having a off road vehicle or truck with a simple four speed auto or better yet a stick. but we have to try to get better fuel economy in vehicles never intended for fuel economy.[/quote]
A manual with a very low first gear is ideal for offroad. None of these 8-10 speed autos will ever make it offroad, never-mind perform.
ZF doesn’t make trannies for offroad durability, they make them for economy and street use.
I would never run an auto of any kind offroad, at least with a manual you can creep home in first if something goes wrong. You can also rock it out of hard places and push start them.
The ZF trannies have had software problems galore as well as mechanical problems such as snap rings flying out due to the tiniest nick inside(due to the tight tight tolerances of stuffing that much into a small package) and flying up through the floor.
While having so many gear ratios to play with is great, is it practical? For economy yes, but for everything else including repair it is not.my cars transmission has four speeds, would it be nice to have another gear… yea i would like to be manual as well, but you know… eight gears is just stupid, unless you are going racing there is no point in my mind in having eight gears, just too complicated.
Yea for offroad i would prefer a manual too, especually someone well practiced with it, simple mechanical gearing can’t go wrong with that.
my big complaint is they are stuffing these 6 or 8 speed transmissions in vehicles intended to haul trailers or vehicles like the jeeps which where once a dedicated roughing it vehicle designed to take off road or maybe on some severely rough terrain a car could never tolerate, now they are becoming some fancy fart SUV, trying to be a fuel economy vehicle.
[quote=”13aceofspades13″ post=155623]my cars transmission has four speeds, would it be nice to have another gear… yea i would like to be manual as well, but you know… eight gears is just stupid, unless you are going racing there is no point in my mind in having eight gears, just too complicated.
Yea for offroad i would prefer a manual too, especually someone well practiced with it, simple mechanical gearing can’t go wrong with that.
my big complaint is they are stuffing these 6 or 8 speed transmissions in vehicles intended to haul trailers or vehicles like the jeeps which where once a dedicated roughing it vehicle designed to take off road or maybe on some severely rough terrain a car could never tolerate, now they are becoming some fancy fart SUV, trying to be a fuel economy vehicle.[/quote] Blame CAFE. The bureaucrats in government never got how things work in the real world. All they do is try to please the special interests. Us real people know that for towing, hauling and off-road applications, economy comes last. For towing, it’s all about torque…not horsepower, hence why diesel and big blocks reign supreme. The same gearing that makes towing easy, destroys economy. Low gears are what towing is all about. When towing/hauling you don’t need to or want to travel much over 60 MPH so the extra OD gears are useless. Not to mention, you NEVER are supposed to tow in OD.
I’ve got three trucks and the only one worth towing with is the 74′. Sure it gets shitty economy, but it can outpull almost anything in it’s class.i am guessing the 74 is that chevy with the 454 big block and the low gears you have? yea… a ford F-150 would throw a connecting rod trying to tow with that.
yea i know the government wants to push better fuel economy, but they have too much control, people who know nothing about automobiles should have no say in our automotive industry, just like people that can’t tell the difference between a BB gun and a real gun shouldn’t have a say in our second amendment rights.
[quote=”13aceofspades13″ post=155772]i am guessing the 74 is that chevy with the 454 big block and the low gears you have? yea… a ford F-150 would throw a connecting rod trying to tow with that.
yea i know the government wants to push better fuel economy, but they have too much control, people who know nothing about automobiles should have no say in our automotive industry, just like people that can’t tell the difference between a BB gun and a real gun shouldn’t have a say in our second amendment rights.[/quote] That’d be the one.
Ya, there’s a certain faction in this country that is trying to strip us of our say and constitutional rights.
Ya, nevermind the difference between bolt action, semi auto, muzzleloader, fully auto, pistol, revolver etc.
The same people that call every rifle with an aggressive cosmetic design an “assault rifle”.
The same people that don’t realize that a AR-15 will actaully due less damage per pull of trigger than a 12 gauge shotgun
The same people that preach gun control will stop criminals and curb gun violence(statistics prove othwerwise)
and the same loonies that believe in man made climate change.
But I digress.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.