Second Heater Core

"Jan Andersson" > wrote in message
...
>
>snip anecdotal evidence<
>
> 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)

Anecdotal evidence aside, the average car coming off of the average American
assembly line in the 1960s was a piece of junk the day it was built. Cars in
the 70s were worse.

Because the Japanese were kicking our collective butts, somewhere in the
1980s quality became Job One. And it wasn't until well into the 90s that the
Big Three finally got a handle on this whole quality thing.

The vast number of cars built today are aimed squarely at the mass market
driver, what I call point-and-shoot cars. Get in, start it up, drive to
work. In a few years, all of those ads and incentives convince these folks
to trade up to a new model. But, through innovation and government
regulation, these point-and-shoot cars are also designed to protect these
drivers from themselves. That's fine, since these folks aren't really into
motoring, they just want reliable transportation. And more air bags and
cupholders, apparently.

A very small minority actually likes cars. These people could have bought
any model from any year over the past five decades and kept it beautiful,
kept it running like a clock, and kept racking up the miles beyond 100,000
or 200,000 or much more. These are the cars that we see at shows, that we
see tooling down a back road on a sunny day. While the build quality of
previous decades was suspect at best, no car was built to fail within four,
five, or six years. Every car came with a little book that describes the
care and feeding of the animal, and owners ignore that little book at their
own expense.

I'm somewhere in between. I own two Fox Mustangs, both coming up on their
15th birthdays. Neither is a show car, both are daily drivers, neither is
babied. I have regular maintenance done, and when things break, they get
shop time. For whatever reason (that I still haven't fully figured out), I
am in love with this particular model/year and haven't yet been pursuaded to
trade up.

BUT... How can I argue with the new Corvette? How can I look at the new
Mustang GT, without getting goosebumps? I even see the attraction of the
Nissan Altima! Toyota has nothing that stirs my blood, nor Honda, but I'm
not their target market, am I?

There are a small number of cars built today that can get me excited, and
there have been times that I thought all cars like them would disappear
completely, given the rise of influence of the insurance and government
regulations. And now the growing Green forces threaten them even more with
extinction. Yet, for some reason, performance is growing across all lines,
with V6 engines putting out the power of V8s.

I have no doubt that any car built TODAY, in the hands of a caring owner,
could easily go 500,000 miles in the years to come. The sad truth is that
the bulk of new cars today will be recycled within ten to twenty years, just
as previous generations before them. It's the nature of consumables...

dwight
www.tfrog.com

Michael Johnson wrote:

> 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.


I have a 1970 Nova right now.. 230ci six, 2-speed auto tranny. 4 door
grandma car. Got it cheap, owner said there's nothing wrong with it...
well I found a hole and pieces missing from one piston and another one
headed the same way. The cheapest pistons I found were $8 a piece
I didn't get those.
6 new pistons later (and rod bearings, because the opportunity was
there), it was back on the road. Yes it has some rust issues.



> 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.

Oh yea, I should have mentioned my european origins We don't think
very highly of american cars past the early 70's.


> 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.

Which brings me to the point I made earlier: the standards have changed.
Lesser quality has become acceptable, and the norm.



> 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.

All of the above give people a false sense of security, and somehow they
think they can drive like maniacs. (I live in Florida, come see how it
is down here). All the safety equipment and automated functions mean the
driver needs less and less driving skills, and when the time comes when
he needs them, they are not there.
VW studied and designed crumple zones in the 50's.

> Getting good mileage with very good performance is
> another perk of applying technology.

Mileage has not improved significantly for decades. Engine efficiency
may have, but the vehicles also got heavier (because of all the extra
junk), so you don't benefit from the efficiency.

> 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.

You sound like a man who takes care of his cars.


> 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.

Kinda nice, but not exciting. I don't have strong feelings either way
about it. Still has solid rear axle, and no independent rear suspension?
No new mustang today has one? Why did they cheap out?



> There are four wheel drive, turbocharged subcompacts that will
> perform as well as Corvettes of just a decade ago.

Yes, I'm still a member of a Subaru club even after selling my turbo
wagon. Friend had a 2004 STi. Nice car, but it too requires some
noticeable upgrades to start working as it 'should'. And at the end, you
still end up with a plastic tub that doesn't look any different from a
Corolla. Except for that god-ugly, ridiculous wing that just has to go



> The Camaro is coming back

Disappointed already. It looked ok in the few pics I saw early on, but
something is missing. I like the nose.

> and we have a Challenger on the showroom floors.

That at least looks good. I don't know it well enough to have formed an
opinion yet. I'm worried that they ruined it somehow anyway.


> 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.

Performance isn't everything though. I like it to look good inside and
out, handle well, be functional as a daily driver, and maybe even be
reliable.

Of course my last requirement make the above comnination impossible: I
want it cheap

Jan Andersson wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> I have a 1970 Nova right now.. 230ci six, 2-speed auto tranny. 4 door
> grandma car. Got it cheap, owner said there's nothing wrong with it...
> well I found a hole and pieces missing from one piston and another one
> headed the same way. The cheapest pistons I found were $8 a piece
> I didn't get those.
> 6 new pistons later (and rod bearings, because the opportunity was
> there), it was back on the road. Yes it has some rust issues.

Mine had a two speed auto too. You're bringing back memories. Some are
fond ones and some aren't.

>> 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.
>
> Oh yea, I should have mentioned my european origins We don't think
> very highly of american cars past the early 70's.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Which brings me to the point I made earlier: the standards have changed.
> Lesser quality has become acceptable, and the norm.

How many miles are on that 1970 Nova you mentioned above? Getting 100k
miles from the older cars was considered good. Getting 100k miles from
a new car is a given and most likely 200k is more than reasonable.
Plus, the bodies of the new cars have much better rust protection and
the chassis can actually last long enough to run for 200k miles or for
several decades, whichever comes first. The machining tolerances today
are much tighter than they were decades ago which adds to longevity.
Remember back in the day that many engines had to be blueprinted and
balanced to really make high rpm horsepower? Today there are factory
motors spinning to 7k and beyond and lasting for a very long time doing it.

>> 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.
>
> All of the above give people a false sense of security, and somehow they
> think they can drive like maniacs. (I live in Florida, come see how it
> is down here). All the safety equipment and automated functions mean the
> driver needs less and less driving skills, and when the time comes when
> he needs them, they are not there.
> VW studied and designed crumple zones in the 50's.

The cars are getting so well made today that many fire and rescue
companies are finding their rescue equipment can't pry the doors lose or
cut through the steel. They have to basically dismantle the car in
order to get to the occupants in many accidents. The formulation of the
steel used in most cars today didn't even exist a decade ago.

>> Getting good mileage with very good performance is another perk of
>> applying technology.
>
> Mileage has not improved significantly for decades. Engine efficiency
> may have, but the vehicles also got heavier (because of all the extra
> junk), so you don't benefit from the efficiency.

Mileage has improved a great deal considering the horsepower produced.
One area I am surprised about it that they haven't made cars
significantly lighter.

>> 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.
>
> You sound like a man who takes care of his cars.

I don't obsess over them at all. I just perform basic maintenance.
This is all that is needed to get close to 200k out of about any new car
sold today. When one looks at reliability and longevity there really
isn't much of a gap between vehicles nowadays across all price points.
They all can be run for around 200k or more with basic routine
maintenance. In reality this is more lifespan than 99.9% of the drivers
need or want.

>> 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.
>
> Kinda nice, but not exciting. I don't have strong feelings either way
> about it. Still has solid rear axle, and no independent rear suspension?
> No new mustang today has one? Why did they cheap out?

You can find just about whatever performance car you desire today. They
can be inexpensive, basic drive trains, IRS rear wheel drive, four wheel
drive etc. It is all available.

>> There are four wheel drive, turbocharged subcompacts that will perform
>> as well as Corvettes of just a decade ago.
>
> Yes, I'm still a member of a Subaru club even after selling my turbo
> wagon. Friend had a 2004 STi. Nice car, but it too requires some
> noticeable upgrades to start working as it 'should'. And at the end, you
> still end up with a plastic tub that doesn't look any different from a
> Corolla. Except for that god-ugly, ridiculous wing that just has to go

.... and a 1960s GTO was really just a Tempest with a few badges and hood
scoop. At least the WRX has some real guts and the bones to make it a
really outstanding performer.

>> The Camaro is coming back
>
> Disappointed already. It looked ok in the few pics I saw early on, but
> something is missing. I like the nose.

Anyone that doesn't like the new Camaro, Mustang or Challenger but likes
the old muscle cars is just never going to be satisfied, IMO, with
anything new. These cars are good looking and outperform their
predecessors by leaps and bounds. Compare the new ZR1 Vette (Blue Devil
I believe) with ANYTHING in its past and it just literally stomps the
crap out of any previous model.

>> and we have a Challenger on the showroom floors.
>
> That at least looks good. I don't know it well enough to have formed an
> opinion yet. I'm worried that they ruined it somehow anyway.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Performance isn't everything though. I like it to look good inside and
> out, handle well, be functional as a daily driver, and maybe even be
> reliable.
>
> Of course my last requirement make the above comnination impossible: I
> want it cheap

A Mustang GT will meet all of your goals. It is reliable, performs very
well and is reasonably function as a daily driver. Even gas mileage is
decent if you keep your foot out of it. It sounds to me like it is your
personal taste regarding style that makes you dislike the new cars and
not necessarily their engineering and performance.

Michael Johnson wrote:

>> Which brings me to the point I made earlier: the standards have
>> changed. Lesser quality has become acceptable, and the norm.
>
> How many miles are on that 1970 Nova you mentioned above?


Don't know. Too lazy to go look and I think the odometer rolls over at
99.999? Hmm. That would be an indicator that not much more was expected
of them... lol
Still, 38 years old and still runs ok and looks half decent. Everything
works. (after the piston swap, but it did run before that too)


> Getting 100k
> miles from the older cars was considered good. Getting 100k miles from
> a new car is a given and most likely 200k is more than reasonable. Plus,
> the bodies of the new cars have much better rust protection and the
> chassis can actually last long enough to run for 200k miles or for
> several decades, whichever comes first.


Yea I suppose that's true.


> The machining tolerances today
> are much tighter than they were decades ago which adds to longevity.
> Remember back in the day that many engines had to be blueprinted and
> balanced to really make high rpm horsepower? Today there are factory
> motors spinning to 7k and beyond and lasting for a very long time doing it.


Sloppy tolerances don't necessarily translate to poor longevity in my
mind. If an engine was designed for loose tolerances (dictated by mass
production limitations of yesteryear), then I'm sure it would last a
long time. Add low power output into the mix, and you get 300k engines
that just refuse to die. Old V8's, the VW beetle boxer, some 4-banger
diesel engines.. Not very sophisticated, not very powerful for the
displacement, but they take you from A to B for decades.

When you increase the power output and load, the wear and tear increases.



> The cars are getting so well made today that many fire and rescue
> companies are finding their rescue equipment can't pry the doors lose or
> cut through the steel. They have to basically dismantle the car in
> order to get to the occupants in many accidents. The formulation of the
> steel used in most cars today didn't even exist a decade ago.

I'm mostly familiar with old VW's. The factory apparently started using
noticeably more recycled steel in th elate 60's and early 70's. Those
cars are almost all total rustbuckets, structural rust damage
everywhere. 50's and 60's models, even non-hobbyist cars, are in much
better shape. 70's and 80's were bad... for european and japanese cars
at least. 90's wasn't that much better, but zinc plated body parts
started to make way into mass produced cars (Volvo, Audi, the higher end
vehicles first)




> Mileage has improved a great deal considering the horsepower produced.
> One area I am surprised about it that they haven't made cars
> significantly lighter.

Mileage stayed pretty much the same, give or take a little, and vehicle
performance stayed virtually unchanged. Weight increased, and the
improved fuel economy & horsepower covered the gap. I don't know where
the weight comes from, more steel and interior materials? Thicker glass?
All the 'new technology' that you now have to lug around with you?
There are a few exceptions in the family vehicle sector, some small
diesels get awesome mileage, a lot better than their comparable
predecessors. But we are still looking at 20-30 something MPG new
passenger cars, while 40mpg vehicles were available 40 years ago. It
takes a hybrid to get over 40 these days. Back to increased weight and
performance again One would think that with all the modern
technology, we would know how to make parts out of lighter materials
without sacrificing strenght. Some attempts have been made (aluminum
trailing arms on VW passats etc. needed replacing after 20k and were
soon discontinued) but still the weights have increased by 50% easily
over the past 1-2 decades. (european and asian cars)


> Anyone that doesn't like the new Camaro, Mustang or Challenger but likes
> the old muscle cars is just never going to be satisfied, IMO, with
> anything new.

I guess I was born a generation or two too late
I do like the looks of the latest Mustang, more as time passes. The
challenger looks very very promising. The camaro sort of lacks
something, can't say what it is.


> A Mustang GT will meet all of your goals. It is reliable, performs very
> well and is reasonably function as a daily driver. Even gas mileage is
> decent if you keep your foot out of it. It sounds to me like it is your
> personal taste regarding style that makes you dislike the new cars and
> not necessarily their engineering and performance.

Style makes a big difference yes. I don't like cars that disappear into
the gray mass the second you blink your eye. There are mechanically
interesting cars out there that do just that. Then there are nice
looking cars that leave room for improvement in the performance or
handling area, and that's a big disappointment too.

I have to admit that it's my personality to always try to improve on
something and make it more to my liking. Nothing is good enough right
off the showroom floor. Or used car lot, for that matter. I would modify
old classics just the same.

I guess you just can't please me. LOL