Second Heater Core

"jonezzzman" > wrote in message
et...
> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes premature
> failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about this? Is it true
> your supposed to use distilled water or the premixed coolant? I'm getting
> ready to change a heater core in my 89 GT.
>
> Thanks
>
> Byron

Minerals in hard tap water are the issue. I always use distilled to mix my
coolants.
Especially now with the long life 5/150 out today. Cheap insurance IMO

jonezzzman wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>> vent.
>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer because
>>> they
>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>> stores.
>>>>>
>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his replacement
>>>> core managed to achieve.
>>>
>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses also
>>> intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>
>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I type
>> this post.
>
> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes premature
> failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about this? Is it
> true your supposed to use distilled water or the premixed coolant? I'm
> getting ready to change a heater core in my 89 GT.

I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes deposits and
using distilled water causes it to leach the metals like aluminum into
the water which, in turn, cause deposits to buildup. Personally, I
think the key is to do regular changes of the coolant as antifreeze
contains chemicals to prevent scale buildup and corrosion.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> jonezzzman wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer because
>>>> they
>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>>> stores.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his replacement
>>>>> core managed to achieve.
>>>>
>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses also
>>>> intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>
>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I type
>>> this post.
>>
>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about
>> this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or the premixed
>> coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core in my 89 GT.
>
> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes deposits and
> using distilled water causes it to leach the metals like aluminum into
> the water which, in turn, cause deposits to buildup. Personally, I
> think the key is to do regular changes of the coolant as antifreeze
> contains chemicals to prevent scale buildup and corrosion.


Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P

Jan Andersson wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer because
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his replacement
>>>>>> core managed to achieve.
>>>>>
>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses also
>>>>> intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>
>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I type
>>>> this post.
>>>
>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about
>>> this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or the
>>> premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core in my 89
>>> GT.
>>
>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes deposits
>> and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals like aluminum
>> into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to buildup. Personally,
>> I think the key is to do regular changes of the coolant as antifreeze
>> contains chemicals to prevent scale buildup and corrosion.
>
>
> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P

There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Jan Andersson wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer because
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his replacement
>>>>>>> core managed to achieve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses also
>>>>>> intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>>
>>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I type
>>>>> this post.
>>>>
>>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about
>>>> this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or the
>>>> premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core in my
>>>> 89 GT.
>>>
>>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes deposits
>>> and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals like aluminum
>>> into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to buildup.
>>> Personally, I think the key is to do regular changes of the coolant
>>> as antifreeze contains chemicals to prevent scale buildup and corrosion.
>>
>>
>> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P
>
> There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".


The typical american mentality with cars is to buy one, drive it to the
ground, bitch and moan when it breaks, then replace it with another.
Restart cycle.

Jan

Jan Andersson wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer because
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his replacement
>>>>>>>> core managed to achieve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses also
>>>>>>> intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I
>>>>>> type this post.
>>>>>
>>>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about
>>>>> this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or the
>>>>> premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core in my
>>>>> 89 GT.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes deposits
>>>> and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals like
>>>> aluminum into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to buildup.
>>>> Personally, I think the key is to do regular changes of the coolant
>>>> as antifreeze contains chemicals to prevent scale buildup and
>>>> corrosion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P
>>
>> There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".
>
>
> The typical american mentality with cars is to buy one, drive it to the
> ground, bitch and moan when it breaks, then replace it with another.
> Restart cycle.

I think people are much better overall but the manufacturers have
removed so many of the old maintenance requirements that if one just
changes the engine oil regularly they can get 100k+ miles from a
vehicle. Throw in a little more maintenance and getting 150k-200k miles
is fairly routine.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Jan Andersson wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>>>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his
>>>>>>>>> replacement core managed to achieve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses
>>>>>>>> also intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I
>>>>>>> type this post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>>>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about
>>>>>> this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or the
>>>>>> premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core in my
>>>>>> 89 GT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes
>>>>> deposits and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals
>>>>> like aluminum into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to
>>>>> buildup. Personally, I think the key is to do regular changes of
>>>>> the coolant as antifreeze contains chemicals to prevent scale
>>>>> buildup and corrosion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P
>>>
>>> There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".
>>
>>
>> The typical american mentality with cars is to buy one, drive it to
>> the ground, bitch and moan when it breaks, then replace it with
>> another. Restart cycle.
>
> I think people are much better overall but the manufacturers have
> removed so many of the old maintenance requirements that if one just
> changes the engine oil regularly they can get 100k+ miles from a
> vehicle. Throw in a little more maintenance and getting 150k-200k miles
> is fairly routine.


When consumer expectations are getting lower and lower, then poor
quality gets widely accepted... then it somehow becomes 'average'
quality, and then, eventually, the new standard. Over time, people
reluctantly accept that it's not going to get any better than this, be
it Ford, Chevy, or Volkswagen. Manufacturers would be foolish to make
and sell products that are better, and last longer than expected. They
NEED their products to fail or become unwanted as soon as possible (just
short of getting a bad rep) so they can sell the next face lift model
to the same guy.

If you tried to sell a car 30 years ago that would last only 6 years,
you would have been lynched. Today a person who buys a new car, won't
see it's 4th birthday, they trade it in and it becomes someone else's
problem. Why even worry about preventative maintenance, you can't
justify a further monetary investment in something you won't keep long
enough to benefit from it. Just drive the **** out of it and pass it on
to some unsuspecting poor fool who will then struggle with the
inevitable breakdowns. You got what you wanted out of it.


Coincidentally, cars made 30, 40, and 50 years ago, are STILL on the
road. Some in great numbers even, and in decent mechanical shape. Often
with just as minimal maintenance. They were built to last a generation.
Even cars that were the 'economical and cheap' alternative of their day,
were designed tougher than most cars today. At some point some pencil
pusher figured out they can cut material costs by making parts weaker,
and subcontracting them to 3rd world countries.
Sure they started failing more often, but that's how 'modern,
complicated technology' is. <cough cough>. With time... sub-standard
sneaked it's way into becoming the new Standard.

Keep your new junk, gimme something from the 60's.

Jan Andersson wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above the
>>>>>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto parts
>>>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his
>>>>>>>>>> replacement core managed to achieve.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses
>>>>>>>>> also intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I
>>>>>>>> type this post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>>>>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything about
>>>>>>> this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or the
>>>>>>> premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core in
>>>>>>> my 89 GT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes
>>>>>> deposits and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals
>>>>>> like aluminum into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to
>>>>>> buildup. Personally, I think the key is to do regular changes of
>>>>>> the coolant as antifreeze contains chemicals to prevent scale
>>>>>> buildup and corrosion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P
>>>>
>>>> There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".
>>>
>>>
>>> The typical american mentality with cars is to buy one, drive it to
>>> the ground, bitch and moan when it breaks, then replace it with
>>> another. Restart cycle.
>>
>> I think people are much better overall but the manufacturers have
>> removed so many of the old maintenance requirements that if one just
>> changes the engine oil regularly they can get 100k+ miles from a
>> vehicle. Throw in a little more maintenance and getting 150k-200k
>> miles is fairly routine.
>
>
> When consumer expectations are getting lower and lower, then poor
> quality gets widely accepted... then it somehow becomes 'average'
> quality, and then, eventually, the new standard. Over time, people
> reluctantly accept that it's not going to get any better than this, be
> it Ford, Chevy, or Volkswagen. Manufacturers would be foolish to make
> and sell products that are better, and last longer than expected. They
> NEED their products to fail or become unwanted as soon as possible (just
> short of getting a bad rep) so they can sell the next face lift model to
> the same guy.
>
> If you tried to sell a car 30 years ago that would last only 6 years,
> you would have been lynched. Today a person who buys a new car, won't
> see it's 4th birthday, they trade it in and it becomes someone else's
> problem. Why even worry about preventative maintenance, you can't
> justify a further monetary investment in something you won't keep long
> enough to benefit from it. Just drive the **** out of it and pass it on
> to some unsuspecting poor fool who will then struggle with the
> inevitable breakdowns. You got what you wanted out of it.
>
>
> Coincidentally, cars made 30, 40, and 50 years ago, are STILL on the
> road. Some in great numbers even, and in decent mechanical shape. Often
> with just as minimal maintenance. They were built to last a generation.
> Even cars that were the 'economical and cheap' alternative of their day,
> were designed tougher than most cars today. At some point some pencil
> pusher figured out they can cut material costs by making parts weaker,
> and subcontracting them to 3rd world countries.
> Sure they started failing more often, but that's how 'modern,
> complicated technology' is. <cough cough>. With time... sub-standard
> sneaked it's way into becoming the new Standard.
>
> Keep your new junk, gimme something from the 60's.

I can't agree with you on this. The new cars we can buy today are light
years ahead of the old ones of my youth. Back then you were lucky the
car wasn't a complete buck of rust by 100,000 miles. In fact, having an
engine last 100,000 miles was not the norm. Maintenance was much more
intensive, mileage worse and performance/reliability not even close to
the cars we have today. Most cars sold now can easily hit 100k miles
and many are good for close to 200k miles if they are maintained well.
Compare the current Mustang GT to just about any early Mustang and the
difference is night and day regarding performance and reliability.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Jan Andersson wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:SO-
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front windshield above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k?
>>>>>>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his
>>>>>>>>>>> replacement core managed to achieve.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @ 149k - original hoses
>>>>>>>>>> also intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I
>>>>>>>>> type this post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>>>>>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything
>>>>>>>> about this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or
>>>>>>>> the premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core
>>>>>>>> in my 89 GT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes
>>>>>>> deposits and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals
>>>>>>> like aluminum into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to
>>>>>>> buildup. Personally, I think the key is to do regular changes of
>>>>>>> the coolant as antifreeze contains chemicals to prevent scale
>>>>>>> buildup and corrosion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P
>>>>>
>>>>> There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The typical american mentality with cars is to buy one, drive it to
>>>> the ground, bitch and moan when it breaks, then replace it with
>>>> another. Restart cycle.
>>>
>>> I think people are much better overall but the manufacturers have
>>> removed so many of the old maintenance requirements that if one just
>>> changes the engine oil regularly they can get 100k+ miles from a
>>> vehicle. Throw in a little more maintenance and getting 150k-200k
>>> miles is fairly routine.
>>
>>
>> When consumer expectations are getting lower and lower, then poor
>> quality gets widely accepted... then it somehow becomes 'average'
>> quality, and then, eventually, the new standard. Over time, people
>> reluctantly accept that it's not going to get any better than this, be
>> it Ford, Chevy, or Volkswagen. Manufacturers would be foolish to make
>> and sell products that are better, and last longer than expected. They
>> NEED their products to fail or become unwanted as soon as possible
>> (just short of getting a bad rep) so they can sell the next face lift
>> model to the same guy.
>>
>> If you tried to sell a car 30 years ago that would last only 6 years,
>> you would have been lynched. Today a person who buys a new car, won't
>> see it's 4th birthday, they trade it in and it becomes someone else's
>> problem. Why even worry about preventative maintenance, you can't
>> justify a further monetary investment in something you won't keep long
>> enough to benefit from it. Just drive the **** out of it and pass it
>> on to some unsuspecting poor fool who will then struggle with the
>> inevitable breakdowns. You got what you wanted out of it.
>>
>>
>> Coincidentally, cars made 30, 40, and 50 years ago, are STILL on the
>> road. Some in great numbers even, and in decent mechanical shape.
>> Often with just as minimal maintenance. They were built to last a
>> generation.
>> Even cars that were the 'economical and cheap' alternative of their
>> day, were designed tougher than most cars today. At some point some
>> pencil pusher figured out they can cut material costs by making parts
>> weaker, and subcontracting them to 3rd world countries.
>> Sure they started failing more often, but that's how 'modern,
>> complicated technology' is. <cough cough>. With time... sub-standard
>> sneaked it's way into becoming the new Standard.
>>
>> Keep your new junk, gimme something from the 60's.
>
> I can't agree with you on this. The new cars we can buy today are light
> years ahead of the old ones of my youth. Back then you were lucky the
> car wasn't a complete buck of rust by 100,000 miles. In fact, having an
> engine last 100,000 miles was not the norm. Maintenance was much more
> intensive, mileage worse and performance/reliability not even close to
> the cars we have today. Most cars sold now can easily hit 100k miles
> and many are good for close to 200k miles if they are maintained well.
> Compare the current Mustang GT to just about any early Mustang and the
> difference is night and day regarding performance and reliability.


Most of the 80's cars are now gone. 70's cars are disappearing too. But
there's still 60's cars around, and even when not maintained very well,
are still kicking.

More maintenance? Old cars had 99% LESS parts that could go wrong.
Today, Microsoft is making operating systems for cars, fer chrissakes

If you have a mechanical fuel pump, a carburator, a basic points & coil
kettering ignition, and a simple generator or an alternator even, you
were good to go. What else could go wrong?

Case example 1: The VW Beetle. Not the plastic Golf IV in drag, but the
real thing. 100k miles easy. 200k miles not uncommon. Heck, even a
poorly maintained piece of 1970 junk 1500 I had, made it past 250k, and
was finally laid to rest due to rust holes in the floorpan. The engine
lived on in another car. There were no signs of anyone ever rebuilding
it. (Every nut and bolt were rusted solid).

Case example 2: Well, this is an exception from the 80:s. The Mercedes.
Not uncommon at all to hear them go a MILLION miles. Granted, that would
usually mean an engine and tranny rebuild at some point.

3: Volvo has had models that easily made 500k and even close to a million.

4: Even my friend's Mitsubishi Lancer from the 80's got past 500k.


Come to the 90's, and I don't think they could. 2000, and I'm pretty
certain we won't see 'million mile' cars anymore. Mercedes quality has
gone down the drain years ago, they're living off of their legacy and
deserved good name they got in the years past.


Modern cars are packed full of useless junk that not only creates more
need for maintenance and potential breakdowns, it alienates the operator
from actual driving skills, and makes him a passenger with no brains,
rather than a driver.

I'm just ranting I guess, you do have a point.

I'm just so tired of where the industry has gone and how unexciting cars
have become. I can't remember seeing a new car that made me think : WOW,
I gotta get me one of those. I get that with cars older than myself.
(I'm a kiddie though, only 35)

Jan Andersson wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>
>> I can't agree with you on this. The new cars we can buy today are
>> light years ahead of the old ones of my youth. Back then you were
>> lucky the car wasn't a complete buck of rust by 100,000 miles. In
>> fact, having an engine last 100,000 miles was not the norm.
>> Maintenance was much more intensive, mileage worse and
>> performance/reliability not even close to the cars we have today.
>> Most cars sold now can easily hit 100k miles and many are good for
>> close to 200k miles if they are maintained well. Compare the current
>> Mustang GT to just about any early Mustang and the difference is night
>> and day regarding performance and reliability.
>
>
> Most of the 80's cars are now gone. 70's cars are disappearing too. But
> there's still 60's cars around, and even when not maintained very well,
> are still kicking.
>
> More maintenance? Old cars had 99% LESS parts that could go wrong.
> Today, Microsoft is making operating systems for cars, fer chrissakes

There a few advantages to lower tech cars but they are far outweighed by
the advantages this technology brings regarding efficiency, longevity,
reliability, performance and convenience to modern vehicles.

> If you have a mechanical fuel pump, a carburator, a basic points & coil
> kettering ignition, and a simple generator or an alternator even, you
> were good to go. What else could go wrong?

My first car ws a 1971 Nova with a 250 CI inline six. It was about as
simple as they came. I had plenty of issues with it. Before it hit
100k miles it was rusting through, I rebuilt the head, it was a constant
battle to keep it in a good state of tune and the gas mileage wasn't all
that great. It was fairly reliable though and never left me stranded
anywhere.

> Case example 1: The VW Beetle. Not the plastic Golf IV in drag, but the
> real thing. 100k miles easy. 200k miles not uncommon. Heck, even a
> poorly maintained piece of 1970 junk 1500 I had, made it past 250k, and
> was finally laid to rest due to rust holes in the floorpan. The engine
> lived on in another car. There were no signs of anyone ever rebuilding
> it. (Every nut and bolt were rusted solid).
>
> Case example 2: Well, this is an exception from the 80:s. The Mercedes.
> Not uncommon at all to hear them go a MILLION miles. Granted, that would
> usually mean an engine and tranny rebuild at some point.
>
> 3: Volvo has had models that easily made 500k and even close to a million.
>
> 4: Even my friend's Mitsubishi Lancer from the 80's got past 500k.

Many foreign cars were built better than domestics. Especially after
WWII. The same still applies though that the modern versions of these
cars are much better in almost every way.

> Come to the 90's, and I don't think they could. 2000, and I'm pretty
> certain we won't see 'million mile' cars anymore. Mercedes quality has
> gone down the drain years ago, they're living off of their legacy and
> deserved good name they got in the years past.

The fact is 99.99% of driver wouldn't want to keep a car for a million
miles so that benchmark isn't worth much. It would take a person over
66 years to put that many miles on a car driving at a rate of 15,000
miles per year. Who would want to drive the same car for 66 years?
Your definition of quality is very narrow and when that definition is
broadened the new cars stack up very well against their predecessors.

> Modern cars are packed full of useless junk that not only creates more
> need for maintenance and potential breakdowns, it alienates the operator
> from actual driving skills, and makes him a passenger with no brains,
> rather than a driver.

Once again I disagree. When I look at the crash worthiness of new cars
I am amazed at their quality. Having air bags, self tensioning seat
belts, crumple zones, roll over protection etc. is invaluable, IMO.
Having the ability for a third party to know if you have crashed on a
deserted road and being able to send help directly to your location is a
wonderful thing. Getting good mileage with very good performance is
another perk of applying technology.

We have had very good reliability from the newer cars. The '94 T-Bird
we had went 190k miles until our son totaled it. I have a '94 Explorer
with 186k miles that is still going strong. The 2003 Sable we have has
90k miles and has been nearly trouble free. It also delivers great
performance from its 3.0L DOHC V-6. It handles fairly well too. It is
an all around great car and we paid $18k for it brand new and it has
leather interior, sunroof and every option available for that year.

> I'm just ranting I guess, you do have a point.
>
> I'm just so tired of where the industry has gone and how unexciting cars
> have become. I can't remember seeing a new car that made me think : WOW,
> I gotta get me one of those. I get that with cars older than myself.
> (I'm a kiddie though, only 35)

There are plenty of exciting cars for sale. There are performance
models of all varieties. Look at the GT500. It has more performance
than ANY Mustang ever produced and it is for sale TODAY, not during the
1960s. There are four wheel drive, turbocharged subcompacts that will
perform as well as Corvettes of just a decade ago. The Camaro is coming
back and we have a Challenger on the showroom floors. I think if you
look around you will find a lot of performance and at all price points.
Heck, even the current base Mustang has the same horsepower level as
the old 5.0L Fox cars.