Cars Thread

[Doc Sharptail]

I don't think the thread we had going on cars made the transition to new. If it did, I can't find it here.
Mostly what I was doing was pics of old classic cars.
I think in this new iteration, any car discussion, be it old or newer, this should be the place for it.

Couple of entries from me here:



We've had about 4"-6" of new snow over the last couple of days. Yeah, Colorado Lows.
The little 4 X 4 Ford Escape car pictured above is great in the snow!
It handles 12"-16" drifts with no problem. There's cars getting stuck all over the place around here, but this ain't one of them. I do have to drive it sanely though- it's just as hard to stop on ice as any other 2 wheel drive car. I am impressed with this car. For those considering one, be aware that the weight-weenie engineers have had a crack at the design. The fuel tank, and wiper fluid reservoir are pretty tiny.



'32 Chrysler Super 6. Think they were trying to compete a bit with Packard on that name. At any rate, seating for 6 passengers, and an in-line 6 cylinder motor. I seen an ad for one of these on-line a couple of years ago.



This is how motor vehicles were licensed here before WW-2.

I got a lot of classic cars pix to put up as well.

-D.S.

[Allen]

Thanks for sharing. It must have been something back then to own a large car like that Chrysler. Most everyone had large families then.

Cars might have advanced more quickly than they did if we had the paved highways like we have today. Cars then had to endure, dirt, mud, pot holes, ruts, and sometimes, no road at all.

[Doc Sharptail]

Ford Victoria Tudor hard-top. Canadian market car that was probably badged as Fairlane in the U.S.. I think this is a '59.



Later-run GTO behind my old Sekine. Chevelle based body with the usual Pontiac finishing tweaks. Both were fast, but the frame on the Sekine was a bit small-ish. Note the Deuce rag-top attempting to photo-bomb this pic.



There's a better GTO showing Delorean's vision- all Pontiac built, likely a first year car.


-D.S.

[Allen]

It's a rare opportunity now to drive a car like those above so most won't associate with what I'm about to say.

In contrast to what we have to drive today the ride of a lot of those old cars from the 50's--70's is unbelievable as far as smoothness, comfort, and engine response.

The cheapness of the European/Asian influences have taken over the market. People and families are not getting smaller yet our cars are resulting in no full size 4 door cars being made any longer and SUV's that used to fill the gap have gone down the same path.

A drive in one of the old "clunkers" quickly reveals what we have been forced to give up in lui of compactness, lack of engines, lack of style, go-cart ride, and a load of plastic.

[Doc Sharptail]

It's a rare opportunity now to drive a car like those above so most won't associate with what I'm about to say.

In contrast to what we have to drive today the ride of a lot of those old cars from the 50's--70's is unbelievable as far as smoothness, comfort, and engine response.

The cheapness of the European/Asian influences have taken over the market. People and families are not getting smaller yet our cars are resulting in no full size 4 door cars being made any longer and SUV's that used to fill the gap have gone down the same path.

A drive in one of the old "clunkers" quickly reveals what we have been forced to give up in lui of compactness, lack of engines, lack of style, go-cart ride, and a load of plastic.

There's a way around this, if one has the financial means- there are still full sized 1/2 ton trucks being built new.
Some of the modern automotive improvements are definitely that: eg- direct fuel injection. I think the improvements made to engine management computers over the last ten or fifteen years are also a real improvement.

There's a lot of things on our recently new to us car that I really like. The computerized 4-wheel drive traction control is a real god-send for our winters. I is a converted fan of this.
The rapid de-frost system is another bonus (I suspect a simple reversal of the A/C system here) It will melt quite thick freezing rain ice off the windshield in a little over 3 minutes from a cold start. Wife loves the heated seats. I even like the low tire pressure warning system. This list is actually quite long, and I'm not going to go into all of it.

Still on the fence about the turbo-charged under-sized 4 cylinder engine systems that seem to be becoming common now. They use just as much gas as a direct injected conventionally aspirated V-6.
It works on the highway, provided one is prepared for the inevitable turbo lag when booting it to pass.

I do miss driving the old Chev Astro van- it was like driving an elevated caddy.

-D.S.

[lyman]

that white GTO is not a first model year, (1964) but likely a 66/67,
I know Camaro's and a lot of GM stuff got Astro Ventilation or some similar name, and lost the vent windows in 68 and switched to the Chevelle/Cutlass/Tempest/LEmans/Skylark chassis/body in 68

[lyman]

It's a rare opportunity now to drive a car like those above so most won't associate with what I'm about to say.

In contrast to what we have to drive today the ride of a lot of those old cars from the 50's--70's is unbelievable as far as smoothness, comfort, and engine response.

The cheapness of the European/Asian influences have taken over the market. People and families are not getting smaller yet our cars are resulting in no full size 4 door cars being made any longer and SUV's that used to fill the gap have gone down the same path.

A drive in one of the old "clunkers" quickly reveals what we have been forced to give up in lui of compactness, lack of engines, lack of style, go-cart ride, and a load of plastic.

think of it this way,

a Camry V6 or a Nissan Maxima would likely out run most of those old ''clunkers'' even in the 1/4 mile, and can be tuned to be faster,

and those are the 4 door sedans,

not to mention ride better, have better reliability, and mileage,


having said that, if I had time to wrench, I would likely have a nice older British sports car in the garage, or a Corvair

[Allen]

think of it this way,

a Camry V6 or a Nissan Maxima would likely out run most of those old ''clunkers'' even in the 1/4 mile, and can be tuned to be faster,

and those are the 4 door sedans,

not to mention ride better, have better reliability, and mileage,


having said that, if I had time to wrench, I would likely have a nice older British sports car in the garage, or a Corvair

True but why shouldn't they go fast? There's nothing there. My brother's last car was a 2017 Camry with a 4 cyl. It is little more than a wheelbarrow with a lawnmower engine. Ironically he also once had a Maxima from the 90's or so. It had a decent size V6 (3.0 liter I think) so it was a large engine for the size of the car. Still, what I would call a two person car with maybe room for your dog in back seat.

If you've ever mail ordered shoes or clothes from China you know they most often are made several sizes too small.

My opinion is it's the same for all the foreign cars too. Yes they make "cars" with 4 doors but they're children or Chinaman sized doors.

[Allen]

There's a way around this, if one has the financial means- there are still full sized 1/2 ton trucks being built new.
Some of the modern automotive improvements are definitely that: eg- direct fuel injection. I think the improvements made to engine management computers over the last ten or fifteen years are also a real improvement.

There's a lot of things on our recently new to us car that I really like. The computerized 4-wheel drive traction control is a real god-send for our winters. I is a converted fan of this.
The rapid de-frost system is another bonus (I suspect a simple reversal of the A/C system here) It will melt quite thick freezing rain ice off the windshield in a little over 3 minutes from a cold start. Wife loves the heated seats. I even like the low tire pressure warning system. This list is actually quite long, and I'm not going to go into all of it.

Still on the fence about the turbo-charged under-sized 4 cylinder engine systems that seem to be becoming common now. They use just as much gas as a direct injected conventionally aspirated V-6.
It works on the highway, provided one is prepared for the inevitable turbo lag when booting it to pass.

I do miss driving the old Chev Astro van- it was like driving an elevated caddy.

-D.S.

A 1/2 ton truck is what I drive. It has the fuel inj, twin turbo's, 6 speed auto trans, elec switch 4x4, and so on. It is the 3.5 V6 developing 365hp and 430# of torque.

Question is: is it really any better than the older Ford 460 with the simple 3 sp trans? Hp, torque and unfortunately gas mileage are about the same.

While my truck is reliable if it should die somewhere on the road resources to make suitable repairs are few and far between. Most often the newer types end up at the dealerships and that's not a good route either sometimes.

Toyota and others have started using a Constant Velocity Transmission that no one can repair except the manufactures. Even dealerships can not rebuild them. They can swap the trans out with a new or fact reman but not overhaul. This is getting to be a step closer to "disposable cars" --drive them till the fuel tank is empty and just throw it away like a Cricket lighter.

As far as turbo's go I'll always wonder why only the smallest engines are used? Buick did this back with the Grand National turbo-ing the V6 instead of the available Olds 307 V8. Ford did it with the T-bird turbo-ing the 2.3 Pinto engine instead of available V6's and V8's at the time.

I haven't seen any real fuel mileage improvements per se over the years. Instead of trying to get as much power as possible from a pony engine why not turbo and fuel inj a large displacement engine? Sure, you may end up with 700-1000hp but with normal driving you would only need a small fraction of that so the engine would never be taxed---it would need to do little more than idle so wouldn't that make for great MPG? Plus, if you ever needed the horses you would have them.

[lyman]

had a 15 Civic with CVT, managed as much as 37 mpg on flat land, and it drove and shifted like a golf cart,
2 variable diameter pulleys and a belt, not much else,


mom has a 14 Accord, similar CVT, but it is programmed to work more like a regular automatic, and not as noticeable,

Nissan, Subaru and Toyota use them mostly for the smaller displacement and smaller vehicles,
my RAV4 (2021) has a 8spd auto like the Camry

[Doc Sharptail]

A 1/2 ton truck is what I drive. It has the fuel inj, twin turbo's, 6 speed auto trans, elec switch 4x4, and so on. It is the 3.5 V6 developing 365hp and 430# of torque.

Question is: is it really any better than the older Ford 460 with the simple 3 sp trans? Hp, torque and unfortunately gas mileage are about the same.

While my truck is reliable if it should die somewhere on the road resources to make suitable repairs are few and far between. Most often the newer types end up at the dealerships and that's not a good route either sometimes.

Toyota and others have started using a Constant Velocity Transmission that no one can repair except the manufactures. Even dealerships can not rebuild them. They can swap the trans out with a new or fact reman but not overhaul. This is getting to be a step closer to "disposable cars" --drive them till the fuel tank is empty and just throw it away like a Cricket lighter.

As far as turbo's go I'll always wonder why only the smallest engines are used? Buick did this back with the Grand National turbo-ing the V6 instead of the available Olds 307 V8. Ford did it with the T-bird turbo-ing the 2.3 Pinto engine instead of available V6's and V8's at the time.

I haven't seen any real fuel mileage improvements per se over the years. Instead of trying to get as much power as possible from a pony engine why not turbo and fuel inj a large displacement engine? Sure, you may end up with 700-1000hp but with normal driving you would only need a small fraction of that so the engine would never be taxed---it would need to do little more than idle so wouldn't that make for great MPG? Plus, if you ever needed the horses you would have them.

Chev had their own orange block version of the 307. Usual guise was a 2bbl Rochester producing about 265 h.p.
Had one in our '70 Sportvan 90, and it was actually pretty quick mated to the T-400 3 speed auto. The distributor system on it was a weak point with both a very poorly designed mounting plate, and a too small locking spring on the dwell setting screw of the breaker points. G.M. also had a run of bad lifter rods with these, as well as the Chev 350 4 bbl.

The '06 Uplander van, which was a real piece of junk at least had very good gas mileage on the highway. We were getting 34-35 mpg under cruise control. The non-turbo 3.3 direct injected v-6 in it was bullet-proof. Never a motor problem with it, but the front end was severely under-built for the application. It's 4 sp electronic o/d trans-axle probably aided in gas mileage a lot.

-D.S.

[Allen]

Chev had their own orange block version of the 307.

The reason I brought up the 307 Olds was because it was an actual choice of engs for the Buick's back then and was an option on the Buick Skylark (or whatever they called them) and the Olds Cutlass. Instead, Buick turbo-ed the 3.8 (231) Buick V6 for the Grand Nationals.

The 307 Olds was different from the Chev 307. Chev small blocks ranged from 262---400cid yet to my knowledge none of them were ever turbo-ed either, at least not on a production level. The Olds was not a performance engine but could have been with minor mods.

Point still being why beef up, modify and complicate technology on tiny engines to perform like the larger displacement engines when the end result is about the same including fuel mileage?

[Doc Sharptail]

that white GTO is not a first model year, (1964) but likely a 66/67,
I know Camaro's and a lot of GM stuff got Astro Ventilation or some similar name, and lost the vent windows in 68 and switched to the Chevelle/Cutlass/Tempest/LEmans/Skylark chassis/body in 68

Model years can be quite tricky with these. Note the factory wheels and caps on the white GTO- which supposedly only appeared on 1st year cars.
Personally, I agree that it is likely not a first year car, just based on over-all vehicle size. I think the first run cars were a shade bigger.

Here's a head scratcher more or less related:



Early appearance of the SS 396 badging. More commonly found on the Camaro body than the Chevelle. I think the SS 396 Camaro was made in much higher numbers. They got a national (here) ad campaign that the Chevelle version didn't.






Rear profile and a close shot of the badging.

-D.S.

[Allen]

These 60+ year old cars still look better than most any of the new ones. The exceptions being those new ones that were made to resemble the old ones like the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger. I do think the pickups look better though.

Just to show these aren't just my opinionated views. Here is an old pic from the web. That car is now 57 years old.

[Doc Sharptail]

Poor night shot of a street/strip modified Camaro with the SS-396 badging.
I'll have to look through my files for a better shot showing the badging.

-D.S.