Radial Ride Rough on 71 AMC Matador

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:53:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC), sctvguy1 >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:03:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Sounds like a nice car. I always liked them except for the front end
>>> shake we could never get rid of. We only had the 287 engine and it
>>> was quite peppy. It's a shame AMC went out of business, there cars
>>> had a lot of good points.
>>
>>It is a nice bodied car. Bench seats, vent windows, gearshift on the
>>column, very nice seats. It is just the lousy ride! Short of replacing
>>everything again, including softer springs, etc. this car is not going
>>to ride any better. Someone who has three AMC cars, including an old
>>Rambler SC and a 50's Rambler and a 71 Ambassador(same car as mine, just
>>4" longer wheelbase), he said it was the cheap Chinese tires that were
>>making all my problems. He has radials, real Goodyears, on his, and his
>>ride smooth.
>
> Switch tires with him for a few hours and see how the ride is.

He just "mentioned" that is what he has, I do not know where he lives.

On 2014-01-03, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> become a safety hazard. That 72 Impala was also bulletproof. I used
> to drive these things 10,000 miles a month and they were all great
> cars. Even the 72 AMC's were basically trouble free, just not quite as
> nice overall as the Fords and chevies. I truly think the knock given
> to the mid 70's Ford and GM cars was undeserved.

I thought the problem was that cars built one day would be good and cars
built three days later would be crap.

On 01/03/2014 12:53 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC), sctvguy1
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:03:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Sounds like a nice car. I always liked them except for the front end
>>> shake we could never get rid of. We only had the 287 engine and it was
>>> quite peppy. It's a shame AMC went out of business, there cars had a
>>> lot of good points.
>>
>> It is a nice bodied car. Bench seats, vent windows, gearshift on the
>> column, very nice seats. It is just the lousy ride! Short of replacing
>> everything again, including softer springs, etc. this car is not going to
>> ride any better. Someone who has three AMC cars, including an old
>> Rambler SC and a 50's Rambler and a 71 Ambassador(same car as mine, just
>> 4" longer wheelbase), he said it was the cheap Chinese tires that were
>> making all my problems. He has radials, real Goodyears, on his, and his
>> ride smooth.
>
> Switch tires with him for a few hours and see how the ride is.
>

^ what he said, then you will know for sure

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 01/03/2014 11:40 AM, sctvguy1 wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:53:14 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC), sctvguy1 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:03:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Sounds like a nice car. I always liked them except for the front end
>>>> shake we could never get rid of. We only had the 287 engine and it
>>>> was quite peppy. It's a shame AMC went out of business, there cars
>>>> had a lot of good points.
>>>
>>> It is a nice bodied car. Bench seats, vent windows, gearshift on the
>>> column, very nice seats. It is just the lousy ride! Short of replacing
>>> everything again, including softer springs, etc. this car is not going
>>> to ride any better. Someone who has three AMC cars, including an old
>>> Rambler SC and a 50's Rambler and a 71 Ambassador(same car as mine, just
>>> 4" longer wheelbase), he said it was the cheap Chinese tires that were
>>> making all my problems. He has radials, real Goodyears, on his, and his
>>> ride smooth.
>>
>> Switch tires with him for a few hours and see how the ride is.
>
> He just "mentioned" that is what he has, I do not know where he lives.
>

If you have a friend with an old Ford or MoPar with good tires, the
wheels use the same bolt pattern - 5 on 4.5".

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/31/2013 10:29 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 12/31/2013 6:06 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>> On 12/31/2013 9:29 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> It was nicer than the cars build in the US with a complete gauge
>>> set[...]
>>
>> What! You do not love a foot-wide, rectangular, horizontally oriented
>> speedometer that reads 120 mph when the car is going 95 mph?
>>
>
> Ha ha, that stuff is retro and I used to be fascinated by those
> speedometers that moved side to side. I have no idea how those things
> work but they're pretty cool.

Well, I was thinking of a conventional needle gauge Speed-O-Meter, but
in a silly wide rectangular shape, e.g.
<http://home.comcast.net/~Plyfury/74furydash.jpg>.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 12/31/2013 10:16 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 12/31/2013 2:03 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>
>> Damping rod type shocks do the opposite of what you want - they offer
>> little compliance over sharp bumps, but inadequate damping of body
>> movements due to acceleration, turning, and braking. Modern shock
>> designs with separate high and low speed damping circuits do the
>> opposite - a large reason why proper modern cars handle much better with
>> decent ride quality compared to older vehicles.
>>
> It was a pretty funny feeling the car move a little sidewards sometimes.
> OTOH, it wasn't alarming nor did the car feel unstable. It felt stable
> as hell. I'm driving a Passat station wagon now. I don't know if it's
> because of the 4-wheel drive but it feels very stable and controlled
> through corners. Neat stuff!

Modern cars are wondrous in many ways - just wish someone made one
without all the unnecessary crap - get the weight down to 1,800-pounds
or so, and eliminate the power steering and power brakes.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 1/3/2014 12:02 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2014 08:31:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> sctvguy1 > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:02:09 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> And this, in short, is why the Japanese car industry totally clobbered
>>>> us.
>>>
>>> I believe that the Japanese and Koreans made cars more like the US
>>> industry "used" to make: cars that were sized correctly, engines that got
>>> good gasoline mileage and plenty of room inside. Of course, now the
>>> Asians are starting to have the same problems that developed with Detroit
>>> products: crappy styling, cramped interiors and too many electrical
>>> options that go "south" too often.
>>
>> When the Japanese first came into the US car industry in the sixties,
>> the cars they were selling were just terrible. They had severe rust
>> issues, they were tiny and often sized for people much smaller than the
>> typical Americans.
>>
>> But over the course of a decade, the Japanese cars kept getting better
>> and better, and at the same time the American cars were getting worse
>> and worse. By 1975 the whole notion of quality control seems to have
>> totally escaped the Big Three.
>
> Scott, I can't throw any statistics at you but in 1975/76 I was
> working for the state. We always used American cars of course and in
> the early 70's we had Plymouths. They were good cars overall but
> almost every trip resulted in me writing down something that needed
> fixing next time it went in for it's 3000 mile oil change - brake
> issues, shaking, heater controls, adjust doors, fix window cranks....
> But in 1974 we got new Mercury Montegos and in 76 new Chevy malibus.
> Those cars were bulletproof, nothing ever went wrong with them. We
> also added a hand me down 72 Impala to our area to replace a 70
> Plymouth whose power steering had taken on a life of it's own and
> become a safety hazard. That 72 Impala was also bulletproof. I used
> to drive these things 10,000 miles a month and they were all great
> cars. Even the 72 AMC's were basically trouble free, just not quite as
> nice overall as the Fords and chevies. I truly think the knock given
> to the mid 70's Ford and GM cars was undeserved.
>
Those cars were still horrible in terms of steering feel, ride control,
handling, seat design, space efficiency, ergonomics, specific power
output, fuel economy, etc.

Put shaved tires on a mid 1970's VW Golf I/Rabbit, Honda Civic, Honda
Accord, Datsun B210, Datsun 510, etc, and you could actually have fun
running laps at a track - not so with practically anything coming out of
Detroit at the time (even the Corvette was turning into a lounge lizard
cruiser).

--
T0m $herm@n

On 1/5/2014 12:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>
> Well, I was thinking of a conventional needle gauge Speed-O-Meter, but
> in a silly wide rectangular shape, e.g.
> <http://home.comcast.net/~Plyfury/74furydash.jpg>.
>
That 70s tech was awesome - fitting a round gauge in a square hole!

On 1/5/2014 12:19 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>
> Modern cars are wondrous in many ways - just wish someone made one
> without all the unnecessary crap - get the weight down to 1,800-pounds
> or so, and eliminate the power steering and power brakes.
>
1800 lbs is a good weight for a simple car. I had cars close to that
during the 80s. These days, I drive a VW Passat wagon. It seems like a
small car but the darn thing weighs in at 3800 lbs. It's simply amazing!

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09:42 PM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/5/2014 12:19 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Modern cars are wondrous in many ways - just wish someone made one
>
> > without all the unnecessary crap - get the weight down to 1,800-pounds
>
> > or so, and eliminate the power steering and power brakes.
>
> >
>
> 1800 lbs is a good weight for a simple car. I had cars close to that
>
> during the 80s. These days, I drive a VW Passat wagon. It seems like a
>
> small car but the darn thing weighs in at 3800 lbs. It's simply amazing!

Some of those people in Sweden like to buy big old American cars and fix them up. Fill them up with chicks and drink cheap beer and listen to raeggae music while they are driving around.