very old, old and new cars.

Driving home from the auto museum in my only car yesterday, I realized
that if you subtracted the age of the car from the year it was built,
you get 1919!

Cars changed one hell of a lot more between 1919 and 1963 than they
did between 1963 and now.

1963 cars could have power windows, steering and brakes, seatbelts,
AC, DB, power seats, partially-remote control stereo, tint glass, a
(belt driven) supercharger, headrests... Not all were available on all
cars.
Most of the new stuff relates to clean air and safety,

On May 26, 10:23 pm, Stude > wrote:
> Driving home from the auto museum in my only car yesterday, I realized
> that if you subtracted the age of the car from the year it was built,
> you get 1919!
>
> Cars changed one hell of a lot more between 1919 and 1963 than they
> did between 1963 and now.
>
> 1963 cars could have power windows, steering and brakes, seatbelts,
> AC, DB, power seats, partially-remote control stereo, tint glass, a
> (belt driven) supercharger, headrests... Not all were available on all
> cars.
> Most of the new stuff relates to clean air and safety,

And assembling the car cheaply AKA front wheel drive. That is the
worst change IMHO. Had one (given to me) That was enough!

Chuck http://cmbtow.tripod.com

Stude > wrote:
> Cars changed one hell of a lot more between 1919 and 1963 than they
> did between 1963 and now.

In 1919 the car was still quite close to the horse drawn carriage...

> 1963 cars could have power windows, steering and brakes, seatbelts,
> AC, DB, power seats, partially-remote control stereo, tint glass, a
> (belt driven) supercharger, headrests... Not all were available on all
> cars.

You've got a point. Flying cars are still not around :-)

Many of the previsions from back then haven't really materialised. No
nuclear cars, no flying cars, no self driving cars, no 200 mph traffic
etc. But then, we've got cars good for 200000 miles at service every
20000, hybrid cars that have 3 or 4 times the range on the same amount
of fuel, satellite navigation, reliably survivable crashes at 50+ mph...

> Most of the new stuff relates to clean air and safety,

Which is a good thing to me.

cu
.\\arc

Chuck > wrote:
> On May 26, 10:23 pm, Stude > wrote:
>> Most of the new stuff relates to clean air and safety,
>
> And assembling the car cheaply AKA front wheel drive. That is the
> worst change IMHO. Had one (given to me) That was enough!

Front wheel drive existed commercially and large scale since the early
thirties. In my eyes it was one of the early big steps away from a
horseless carriage to the modern car. It made cars lower, put the wheels
at each corner where they belong and made drivers realise what road
holding is.

This was quite influential: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C...Traction_Avant

What is cheaper in front wheel drive than rear wheel drive? These days
there's huge economies of scale because everybody does it, but
originally the setup was quite more complex, with the same wheels
driving and steering. It was quite a bit more expensive to make back
then, but the advantages were so striking that it became the standard
nevertheless.

cu
.\\arc

On 26 May 2007 22:23:17 -0700, Stude > wrote:

>Driving home from the auto museum in my only car yesterday, I realized
>that if you subtracted the age of the car from the year it was built,
>you get 1919!
>
>Cars changed one hell of a lot more between 1919 and 1963 than they
>did between 1963 and now.
>
>1963 cars could have power windows, steering and brakes, seatbelts,
>AC, DB, power seats, partially-remote control stereo, tint glass, a
>(belt driven) supercharger, headrests... Not all were available on all
>cars.
>Most of the new stuff relates to clean air and safety,
===================================
The age thing works only for a 1963 model, though....the difference is
larger for newer year models and smaller for older ones.

My 1929 model A--- 1929-78=1878.

My wife's 1999-- 1999-8=1991.

No argument with the rest of your comments, however.

What's DB?

Joe
--
Heather & Joe Way
Sierra Specialty Automotive
Brake cylinders sleeved with brass
Gus Wilson Stories
http://www.brakecylinder.com

Marc Gerges > wrote in article
>...
>
> ........It made cars lower, put the wheels
> at each corner where they belong and made drivers realise what road
> holding is.
>

That statement alone convinces me that you have absolutely no idea of what
you are talking about.

There are sevearl RWD cars taht come from the factory much lower than most
FWD cars.

FWD are notorious for their understeer.....

The wheels are "...at each corner where they belong....." due to
downsizing, and trimming as much unnecessary weight (stylistic overhang) as
possible.

One could still easily hang an additional foot or two ahead of the front
and behind the rear wheels, and still have the same car, but weight would
be a factor.


>
> What is cheaper in front wheel drive than rear wheel drive?


Switching over to FWD allowed the manufacturers to turn the engine 90° -
which allowed them to downsize (shorten) their cars, but still maintain a
reasonable passenger space since the engine is now mounted transversly.

It is also a cheaper form of assembly since the entire drivetrain can be
assembled in a fixture, then simply bolted into the body shell with a
half-dozen bolts.

Same goes for McPherson struts. Their camber gain/loss curves are
horrendous, but they are space savers since they do not require upper
control arms - again allowing for smaller cars with reasonable cockpit
space.

Regardless of what the car salesman tells you, McPherson struts are NOT
performance suspension.


> These days
> there's huge economies of scale because everybody does it, but
> originally the setup was quite more complex, with the same wheels
> driving and steering. It was quite a bit more expensive to make back
> then, but the advantages were so striking that it became the standard
> nevertheless.
>

Again, the advantages are purely economic from the manufacturing
standpoint.

FWD is cheaper to build and allows the manufacturer to downsize the cars
while still offering reasonable passenger compartment size - relatively
speaking, of course.

The true "six-passenger car" went away in the '60s.

Even today's "five-passenger" vehicles are more realistically based on two
adults and three kids.

* > wrote:
>>
>> ........It made cars lower, put the wheels
>> at each corner where they belong and made drivers realise what road
>> holding is.
>>
>
> That statement alone convinces me that you have absolutely no idea of what
> you are talking about.

Always glad to be convincing :-)

> There are sevearl RWD cars taht come from the factory much lower than most
> FWD cars.
>
> FWD are notorious for their understeer.....

I was referring to cars in the early 1930s. Back when most cars very
clearly showed their ancestry in the horse carriage, when leaf springs
where the way of doing things and when cars had a frame with bodywork
built on it.

It wasn't front wheel drive alone, but the entire package that showed to
the industry that cars could be built differently. Independent of the
fact that some cars were built with low riding frames, or with an
independent suspension etc.

> The wheels are "...at each corner where they belong....." due to
> downsizing, and trimming as much unnecessary weight (stylistic overhang) as
> possible.

If you come from the mindset that a car has leaf springs, those
determine how much room is needed in front of the front wheels and
behind the rear wheels.

> One could still easily hang an additional foot or two ahead of the front
> and behind the rear wheels, and still have the same car, but weight would
> be a factor.

And it'll be a different car once that bit got loaded, as was often the
case with the rear overhang. Building cars in a way that reduced changes
in the cg once they were loaded was a new concept. And if you didn't
want to lose space, the ideal setup was to put the rear wheels as far as
possible to the back end.

>> What is cheaper in front wheel drive than rear wheel drive?
>
> Switching over to FWD allowed the manufacturers to turn the engine 90° -
> which allowed them to downsize (shorten) their cars, but still maintain a
> reasonable passenger space since the engine is now mounted transversly.

You are well aware that most of the early FWD had a longitudinally
mounted engine? The car linked in my original post had its engine
sitting behind the gear box and differential.

> It is also a cheaper form of assembly since the entire drivetrain can be
> assembled in a fixture, then simply bolted into the body shell with a
> half-dozen bolts.

Cool, isn't it?

Although originally those weren't savings targetted by the FWD pioneers.

> Same goes for McPherson struts. Their camber gain/loss curves are
> horrendous, but they are space savers since they do not require upper
> control arms - again allowing for smaller cars with reasonable cockpit
> space.
>
> Regardless of what the car salesman tells you, McPherson struts are NOT
> performance suspension.

I do not quite understand how you come from FWD to MacPherson (the
scotsman who developed them was Earl MacPherson), since they've only
been used since the late forties/early fifties.

MacPhersons are not the most sophisticated suspension setup around, but
then it's all a trade off. Having MacPherson's in the rear of a FWD
hatchback seems quite a sensible trade off between road holding and
trunk space.

And even up front it makes for a nice setup - I know double wishbones
are prettier and enjoyed those in my Alfa 147, but then the likes of
BMW, Mercedes and Porsche seem to be happy with MacPhersons, and from my
latest experience with a Subaru Impreza, it seems to do quite nicely.

> Again, the advantages are purely economic from the manufacturing
> standpoint.
>
> FWD is cheaper to build and allows the manufacturer to downsize the cars
> while still offering reasonable passenger compartment size - relatively
> speaking, of course.

Which, considering it lowered prices, seems to be a good thing.

For those who care, RWD cars are still available.

> The true "six-passenger car" went away in the '60s.

With the six people family, it seems ;-)

> Even today's "five-passenger" vehicles are more realistically based on two
> adults and three kids.

If you look at the size of a child car seat, not even for that.

OTOH, there's a huge range of cars from 2 to 7 seats around, and most
people seem to find a compromise they like. The 6 seat in two rows
passenger car seems to be less of a good idea than the 7 seat in three
rows van.

cu
.\\arc