(T)rusty Holden keeps on running
Doug Jewell
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
LEONIE McNelley's 1964 EH Holden still runs as smoothly as
the day her late father Leo drove it new, straight off the
lot, nearly half-a-century ago.
The classic car has been in the McNelley family for the
entire time after Mrs McNelley inherited it in 1973.
Despite countless attention, turned-heads and countless
offers from impressed car-lovers, Mrs McNelley isn't
planning to give up the Holden that easily after driving it
for 37 years.
“Honestly, I couldn't even imagine driving anything else
now,” the Toowoomba resident said.
“A bit of surface rust has developed over the years but it's
a beautifully running car and has never let me down.
“It runs so quietly, you can barely hear it.”
While you won't find a GPS, sub-woofer, plasma screen or
even a radio in the Holden, it hasn't stopped Mrs McNelley
from getting a lot of attention when she's on the road.
“I can't go anywhere without people pointing it out,” she said.
“I have a good mechanic who told me he hasn't had to do much
to it because it's such a well-built car and it's only ever
had one change of motor.
“While I've had a lot of offers to sell it, I don't think I
will until I can't use it anymore.
“My licence expires in July next year so then I'll have to
decide if I want to renew my licence or quit driving and
finally put the Holden up for sale.”
In its 46 years of use, the vehicle has only clocked up
150,000 miles (241,400km).
--
What is the difference between a duck?
Kev
Hasn't had much to do?
but it's had the engine replaced, it's rusty
and it has less than 250,000klms on it
yeah that's SO WELL BUILT
even Magnas are better than that
what a heap of shit
Kev
Jordan
>
> what a heap of shit
>
What'd be really useful is to know the kilometres (miles?) per dollar,
taking into account inflation. Wish that sort of info were available!
The EH was pretty good, a totally new design from GMH with no bugs.
Understandably, it's a much admired model, but made to rust as were all
cars then.
Jordan
Atheist Chaplain
"Andy" <nospam@> wrote in message
news:h150n7-...@fully.qualified.domain.name...
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
>
> <snip>
>
>> In its 46 years of use, the vehicle has only clocked up
>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>
> such low mileage though.
>
> --
> Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
>
Maybe her mechanic isn't as great as she thinks :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ"
John_H
>Doug Jewell wrote:
>>
>> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
>
><snip>
>
>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>
>such low mileage though.
It's actually an extremely high mileage for a Holden, or almost any
other car, of that era.
Other than those that ran almost continuously (eg taxis) very few
would've seen 100,000 miles without major work and the few
exceptionally well maintained examples that did would've been awfully
tired by the time they were 10 years old, let alone 46.
--
John H
Jordan
>
> It's actually an extremely high mileage for a Holden, or almost any
> other car, of that era.
>
True enough. 100,000 miles on an average 10 year old car was about par.
If not quite dead, the engine was usually smoky and past its best.
Piston rings have improved a lot, I guess.
Jordan
jackbadger56
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > In its 46 years of use, the vehicle has only clocked up
> > 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>
> such low mileage though.
>
> Usenet Improvement Project:http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
I get offered many cars abot 10 years old with under 50k kms...."yeah
i just drive 3km to the station and back"....
Great, 50,000 k's on cold oil. I'll bet the church is about 4 mins
drive from this old dear's house
John_H
Aside from ongoing improvements in manufacturing techniques and
materials there've been two major contributions to engine longevity
since the 1950's. The first was vastly improved filtration (fuel, oil
and air) of which the EH Holden was an early beneficiary. The second
is EFI, which avoids the rich fuel/air mixtures inherent to
carburettors and the resulting high bore wear on cold starts. Each of
those probably doubled the effective life of an engine compared to its
immediate predecessor, apart from the other improvements.
But it doesn't stop there. There used to be a thriving industry in
changeover reconditioned components, ranging from the majors (engines,
transmissions, etc) down to stuff like starter motors, carburettors,
etc. At mileages considered normal by today's standards the
mechanicals of a typical 1960's car would've been reminiscent of
Grandad's old axe!
I've no idea what the new car warranty was on EH but I 'd guess six
months or 10,000 miles would've been somewhere near the mark.
--
John H
Jason James
"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:4urq96hl3ra9qkfem...@4ax.com...
> Andy wrote:
>>Doug Jewell wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> In its 46 years of use, the vehicle has only clocked up
>>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>>
>>Bah, barely broken in! Strange that it'd be on it's second engine with
>>such low mileage though.
>
> It's actually an extremely high mileage for a Holden, or almost any
> other car, of that era.
Apart from oil technology, was there anything intrinsic to the
manufacturering process or the metallurgy, that makes those engines
(red-motors) any different from the average family car these days?
> Other than those that ran almost continuously (eg taxis) very few
> would've seen 100,000 miles without major work and the few
> exceptionally well maintained examples that did would've been awfully
> tired by the time they were 10 years old, let alone 46.
Dad's HR did over 180,000miles to 1983. It spat out a 186 due excessive
blow-by. He did a trip to Dubb from SY and half the sump was dripping from
the hood underlining :-)
Jason
D Walford
> On 9/25/2010 11:01 AM, Kev wrote:
>>
>> what a heap of shit
>>
>
> What'd be really useful is to know the kilometres (miles?) per dollar,
> taking into account inflation. Wish that sort of info were available!
>
> The EH was pretty good, a totally new design from GMH with no bugs.
Seems you haven't driven one then?
IMO even in their day they were very ordinary with appalling steering
and handling and even worse brakes.
Oil leaks and rust were standard on EH's and most cars of that era so in
that regard that weren't any better/worse than many other cars.
> Understandably, it's a much admired model,
That's true but I don't know why, I've driven lots of old Holdens and
even owned a few but I disliked anything Holden before HK in 1969.
Daryl
D Walford
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
>
> <snip>
>
>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>
> such low mileage though.
>
made in that era) would be lucky to last 160,000klms before needing a
rebuild.
Daryl
John_H
>"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>news:4urq96hl3ra9qkfem...@4ax.com...
>> Andy wrote:
>>>Doug Jewell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> In its 46 years of use, the vehicle has only clocked up
>>>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>>>
>>>Bah, barely broken in! Strange that it'd be on it's second engine with
>>>such low mileage though.
>>
>> It's actually an extremely high mileage for a Holden, or almost any
>> other car, of that era.
>
>Apart from oil technology, was there anything intrinsic to the
>manufacturering process or the metallurgy, that makes those engines
>(red-motors) any different from the average family car these days?
Holdens were the average family car, and they probably weren't any
better or worse than most others. Many bought Holdens because they
were perceived as being cheap to overhaul and repair. Most of owners
I ever knew always seemed to know the exact price of a reconditioned
engine... be it a Gold Star or the Silver Star (Repco used to grade
their recos). :)
>> Other than those that ran almost continuously (eg taxis) very few
>> would've seen 100,000 miles without major work and the few
>> exceptionally well maintained examples that did would've been awfully
>> tired by the time they were 10 years old, let alone 46.
>
>Dad's HR did over 180,000miles to 1983. It spat out a 186 due excessive
>blow-by. He did a trip to Dubb from SY and half the sump was dripping from
>the hood underlining :-)
The engines in all those I ever had anything to do with were basket
cases by the time they'd done half that mileage, though no doubt many
would've kept on running for as long as their owners kept the oil up
and didn't make them work. Sounds like your father's car could have
been one of those. :)
Nor could you ever believe the speedo reading on any car that'd been
through a used car yard during that era. Resale values for clean
straight cars were high and recond engines were cheap. Speedos got
reset to whatever mileage looked credible for the general condition of
the body and interior. Plenty of wood ducks were sold cars in
"perfect original condition" which were already on their second
engine.
--
John H
Jason James
Dad's spat out the originalmotor at around 90,000 miles,..the second motor a
"she'll be right" reco did another 90,000 till he stopped driving.
Holden was very much a "Monday mornimg motor or a Friday arvo motor
situation) Pop had an HR 161 which was so quiet, all you could hear was the
fan. On the whole, I liked the red-motors, a "Monday morning" motor was
quiet, powerful and reasonably economical,..altho a Hemi 6 could get the
same figures with twice the power :-)
Jason
John_H
>
>Holden was very much a "Monday mornimg motor or a Friday arvo motor
>situation) Pop had an HR 161 which was so quiet, all you could hear was the
>fan. On the whole, I liked the red-motors, a "Monday morning" motor was
>quiet, powerful and reasonably economical,..altho a Hemi 6 could get the
>same figures with twice the power :-)
Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
of the same era.
Back when "Choice" used to compare running costs IIRC the Valiant Hemi
replaced the VW Beetle as the cheapest car to run. It also remained
at the top of their list for years.
--
John H
Jason James
> Jordan wrote:
>>On 9/25/2010 2:05 PM, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>> It's actually an extremely high mileage for a Holden, or almost any
>>> other car, of that era.
>>
>>True enough. 100,000 miles on an average 10 year old car was about par.
>>If not quite dead, the engine was usually smoky and past its best.
>>Piston rings have improved a lot, I guess.
>
> Aside from ongoing improvements in manufacturing techniques and
> materials there've been two major contributions to engine longevity
> since the 1950's. The first was vastly improved filtration (fuel, oil
> and air) of which the EH Holden was an early beneficiary.
Incredibly, Holden Grey motors ('49>>'63) did not come OEM with an
oil-filter. Couple this with an inclination to only change the oil when one
thought about it (a throw-back to earlier times when cars used so much oil,
you never did get an opportunity to change it) and you get massive amounts
of sludge build-up. This reduces any remaining service life dramaticaly :-(
Jason
Doug Jewell
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/09/25/trusty-holden-keeps-on-running/
>
> <snip>
>
>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
>
> such low mileage though.
family had a bunch of old holdens between my parents and us
kids, there was almost always a red engine at some stage of
rebuild. If N was the number of cars in the family, we
always had N+1 red engines, that way when one died we'd just
swap it over with the last rebuilt one. They were good
engines for the time, but didn't last a fraction of the time
a modern engine does. As you suggest, for a modern six you
wouldn't expect to have to do anything internal to the motor
until 2 to 3 hundred thousand kays. Back in those days, a
rebuild would have been pretty common at about 30-50
thousand miles.
Then there was the constant carby tuning. A stop for petrol
included topping up the oil (remember when servo's used to
have pint bottles of oil next to the bowser?). The first
thing we always used to do was get the local radiator bloke
to make us up a custom larger radiator so the things would
stay cool in summer too. You changed the thermostat every
six months - at the start of summer & start of winter.
Always carried a spare set of plugs, points and capacitor in
case it stopped somewhere, and always had a can of WD40 in
case it stopped on a rainy/foggy day. Ahh the memories...
compared to the modern cars, where you check the oil
occasionally, pretty much never have to top it up, only do
the 6 month oil change and occasional spark plug
replacements, and otherwise pretty much never touch the engine.
The old cars looked good though, but despite all the fond
memories, they really were buckets of junk when you look at
them objectively. One of the things I'd like to do is get
an old E series holden for the nice looking body, but put as
much engine and running gear out of a VN or later commodore
into it to get some reliability.
John_H
>"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>news:so4r96h1mk5n9kmkn...@4ax.com...
>>
>> materials there've been two major contributions to engine longevity
>> since the 1950's. The first was vastly improved filtration (fuel, oil
>> and air) of which the EH Holden was an early beneficiary.
>
>Incredibly, Holden Grey motors ('49>>'63) did not come OEM with an
>oil-filter. Couple this with an inclination to only change the oil when one
>thought about it (a throw-back to earlier times when cars used so much oil,
>you never did get an opportunity to change it) and you get massive amounts
>of sludge build-up. This reduces any remaining service life dramaticaly :-(
When paper air filter elements and spin on oil filters came upon the
scene, around the time of the EH, a large number of people saw it as a
car manufacturers' plot to sell more parts. Given that engine oil
cost something less than 20¢ per litre at the time that's hardly
surprising... most however soon realised the significant improvement
in engine life that came with it.
What I find really incredible are the diehards who still replace their
air filters with oiled foam and use bog rolls for oil filters! :)
--
John H
Scotty
"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message news:0b4t96pvm7pogld5o...@4ax.com...
Bog roll filters. The FIL uses them on his truck, Ive not been a avid beliver of the use of them as
Im sure that the paper fibres would get out causeing possible sludge buildups in nooks and crannies
within the galleries.
Are they widely used, I hadnt heard of anyone using one until the FIL showed me.
: John H
Kev
I knew a guy who fitted one of those Franz Filters under the bonnet of
his 82 Ford Cortina
The 6 cyl cars had bugger all room under the bonnet and he spent many
hours moving wiring and things about to get it to fit and had to remove
it to replace the filters
Too much fucking about for my liking
Kev
Kev
Which is why one guy here in Brisbane was laughed at by every one when
he tried to tell us that fitting a points distributor to another guys XB
panel van engine(older Ford 2V 6cyl) he was rebuilding was the best option
This recoed dizzy cost $100 more than a brand new electronic unit and of
course now the guy has to reset/replace the bloody points every
10,000klms or so
Same guy also fucked about getting it set up for a 350 Holley carb for
more than double the cost of fitting a Weber setup from an XF. Which the
poor guy ended up with when they Holley setup still performed like shit
compared to the weber setup. and of course he's now a bit worried about
the quality of work on the rest of the engine
> compared to the modern cars, where you check the oil occasionally,
> pretty much never have to top it up, only do the 6 month oil change and
> occasional spark plug replacements, and otherwise pretty much never
> touch the engine.
>
> The old cars looked good though, but despite all the fond memories, they
> really were buckets of junk when you look at them objectively. One of
> the things I'd like to do is get an old E series holden for the nice
> looking body, but put as much engine and running gear out of a VN or
> later commodore into it to get some reliability.
which of course you would only use on club days and not as a daily
driver since they have no crash protection if you were ever involved in
any decent traffic crash
Kev
pedro
>Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
>
>IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
>far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
>timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
>of the same era.
And therein lies one of the design weaknesses of the red motor - the
fibre timing gear. They could fail, and did, and far more often than
in the grey. One night in the early 70's we came upon an HR sitting
on the side of the highway (about 10k east of Yellowdine) with an
elderly couple on board. Stopped to see if they were all right - as
you did in those days - he wasn't about to walk for help as he
wouldn't leave her alone at night out there, and didn't know how far
"help" was.
Did the usual tests, spark, had fuel, cranked OK, seemed to have
compression. Pulled the oil filler cap and found the rockers weren't
moving when we cranked it. Timing gear shot.
Kev
why did you need to lift the oil cap?
just turning the thing over you should have heard the lack of
compression from the cyls that had open/bent valves as well as the blow
back though the carb
Kev
Jordan
> The second
> is EFI, which avoids the rich fuel/air mixtures inherent to
> carburettors and the resulting high bore wear on cold starts.
I hadn't thought of that aspect of EFI. Probably only an issue for
forgetful people who don't turn off the choke, like me!
Jordan
Jason James
"pedro" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bvbt96lrcdlom8dg1...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:15:08 +1000, John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
>>
>>IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
>>far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
>>timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
>>of the same era.
>
> And therein lies one of the design weaknesses of the red motor - the
> fibre timing gear. They could fail, and did, and far more often than
> in the grey.
One thing the fibre gears didnt like, was sustained high revs. 3 hours at
4500, eg.
One night in the early 70's we came upon an HR sitting
> on the side of the highway (about 10k east of Yellowdine) with an
> elderly couple on board. Stopped to see if they were all right - as
> you did in those days - he wasn't about to walk for help as he
> wouldn't leave her alone at night out there, and didn't know how far
> "help" was.
>
> Did the usual tests, spark, had fuel, cranked OK, seemed to have
> compression. Pulled the oil filler cap and found the rockers weren't
> moving when we cranked it. Timing gear shot.
The el cheapo alloy gear(s) replacements, were as noisy as hell,..but they
didnt fuck-up.
Jason
John_H
Lucky they were near civilisation! :)
I had no idea where Yellowdine was until I looked up Wiki. Population
14... maybe there's a motor mechanic among 'em! :)
--
John H
pedro
1. No bent valves on those motors.
2. First thing we did was a crank test, to see if it was going to
pop/fart/explode/whatever. It gave enough sound like compression
(obviously a fair number of valves were still closed ...) No
blow-back audible. Air cleaner removed after that to check fuel
entry.
pedro
>
>"pedro" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:bvbt96lrcdlom8dg1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:15:08 +1000, John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
>>>
>>>IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
>>>far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
>>>timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
>>>of the same era.
>>
>> And therein lies one of the design weaknesses of the red motor - the
>> fibre timing gear. They could fail, and did, and far more often than
>> in the grey.
>
>One thing the fibre gears didnt like, was sustained high revs. 3 hours at
>4500, eg.
or lack of lubricant, which I suspect (tm) was the more common cause
of failure.
> One night in the early 70's we came upon an HR sitting
>> on the side of the highway (about 10k east of Yellowdine) with an
>> elderly couple on board. Stopped to see if they were all right - as
>> you did in those days - he wasn't about to walk for help as he
>> wouldn't leave her alone at night out there, and didn't know how far
>> "help" was.
>>
>> Did the usual tests, spark, had fuel, cranked OK, seemed to have
>> compression. Pulled the oil filler cap and found the rockers weren't
>> moving when we cranked it. Timing gear shot.
>
>The el cheapo alloy gear(s) replacements, were as noisy as hell,..but they
>didnt fuck-up.
and less dependent on oil flow.
pedro
>pedro wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:15:08 +1000, John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
>>>
>>>IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
>>>far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
>>>timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
>>>of the same era.
>>
>>And therein lies one of the design weaknesses of the red motor - the
>>fibre timing gear. They could fail, and did, and far more often than
>>in the grey. One night in the early 70's we came upon an HR sitting
>>on the side of the highway (about 10k east of Yellowdine) with an
>>elderly couple on board. Stopped to see if they were all right - as
>>you did in those days - he wasn't about to walk for help as he
>>wouldn't leave her alone at night out there, and didn't know how far
>>"help" was.
>>
>>Did the usual tests, spark, had fuel, cranked OK, seemed to have
>>compression. Pulled the oil filler cap and found the rockers weren't
>>moving when we cranked it. Timing gear shot.
>
>Lucky they were near civilisation! :)
That's one word for it.
>I had no idea where Yellowdine was until I looked up Wiki. Population
>14... maybe there's a motor mechanic among 'em! :)
Dunno if there were farming folk out of sight of the road, but the
only roadside presence in those days was a roadhouse. Possibly a bush
mechanic there.
We did drop in there and let them know about the motorists, and the
bloke at the counter said they'd go out and bring them and their HR
in. If there is a rusty hulk on the roadside now, with a couple of
skeletons in it, then he lied ;-)
Noddy
> Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
It does, but then at that time Holden still had the same engine and it was
no more reliable :)
> IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
> far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
> timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
> of the same era.
I must have been lucky as I owned *many* red motor powered Holdens over the
years and only ever had one that failed. They were also never a very popular
engine through the door of the reconditioning shops other than for
modification work. Falcon 6's were the kind of the "short life" engines in
those days.
> Back when "Choice" used to compare running costs IIRC the Valiant Hemi
> replaced the VW Beetle as the cheapest car to run. It also remained
> at the top of their list for years.
Interesting.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Jason James" <a...@ass.com> wrote in message
news:4c9e8370$0$90002$c30e...@exi-reader.telstra.net...
> Incredibly, Holden Grey motors ('49>>'63) did not come OEM with an
> oil-filter.
There's been a few such engines. The first year of smallblock Chev
production saw them released without an oil filter, but they added one the
following year after some complaint from owners.
> Couple this with an inclination to only change the oil when one thought
> about it (a throw-back to earlier times when cars used so much oil, you
> never did get an opportunity to change it) and you get massive amounts of
> sludge build-up. This reduces any remaining service life dramaticaly :-(
In the grand scheme it probably never made a huge difference given the
engine. A diet of Mobil 1 changed every 1000 miles probably wouldn't have
made it survive any longer :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> When paper air filter elements and spin on oil filters came upon the
> scene, around the time of the EH, a large number of people saw it as a
> car manufacturers' plot to sell more parts. Given that engine oil
> cost something less than 20¢ per litre at the time that's hardly
> surprising... most however soon realised the significant improvement
> in engine life that came with it.
Strange.
> What I find really incredible are the diehards who still replace their
> air filters with oiled foam and use bog rolls for oil filters! :)
Who does that? :)
I used to know a bloke who would *wash* his oil filters. He had an old red
powered Holden, and he'd take off the Z-30 and wash it in a tub of petrol,
set it in the sun "to dry" and whack it back on. The silly prick probably
never understood that the cost of the petrol to "wash" the filter was more
expensive than just buying a new one.
Then again, he was the type of bloke who'd buy 4 litres of turps to wash a 2
buck brush after he'd painted something with oil based paint.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Kev" <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c9ea015$0$13364$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I knew a guy who fitted one of those Franz Filters under the bonnet of his
> 82 Ford Cortina
> The 6 cyl cars had bugger all room under the bonnet and he spent many
> hours moving wiring and things about to get it to fit and had to remove it
> to replace the filters
>
> Too much fucking about for my liking
The only "non standard" type of filter I've ever used has been a washable
micro screen filter made by a company called Oberg, and they work very well.
They're basically a *very* fine mesh screen about the size of a CD
sandwiched between two aluminium housings, and the company claims that they
can filter crap out of new oil. I don't know if that's true, but I've used a
number of them in big horsepower engines with dry sumps and they've done a
*very* good job of keeping the oil clean.
For everyday stuff they're way over the top, and would be overkill compared
to a regular paper element filter.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Did the usual tests, spark, had fuel, cranked OK, seemed to have
> compression. Pulled the oil filler cap and found the rockers weren't
> moving when we cranked it. Timing gear shot.
How would it have had spark if the camshaft wasn't turning?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Toby Ponsenby
postulated:
Not so surprising - owners of either mark never
bothered to fix the things - just hammered the
bastards into the ground.
Ergo, cheap to run.
DC
> Then there was the constant carby tuning. A stop for petrol included
> topping up the oil (remember when servo's used to have pint bottles of
> oil next to the bowser?). The first thing we always used to do was get
> the local radiator bloke to make us up a custom larger radiator so the
> things would stay cool in summer too. You changed the thermostat every
> six months - at the start of summer & start of winter. Always carried a
> spare set of plugs, points and capacitor in case it stopped somewhere,
> and always had a can of WD40 in case it stopped on a rainy/foggy day.
> Ahh the memories...
Living in the bush, I always carried a spare water pump for my HQ. I
can't remember the number of times I've replaced a water pump on a red
motor. On the plus side, it was pretty easy thing to do.
John_H
>> air filters with oiled foam and use bog rolls for oil filters! :)
>
>Who does that? :)
There used to a significant number of Finer Filter fans here... most
of whom thought they worked better than the original paper element for
a fraction of the cost.
AFAIK the original bog roll filter was the Frantz and they're still
readily available. I'd imagine they're probably not as popular as
they once were, if only because of the effort involved. And of course
they're a bypass filter. Frantz also claimed it wasn't ever necesary
to change the oil.
My old man, who was a mechanic, had different type on all his own cars
but I've no idea what the brand was. It used a perforated metal
cannister he used to repack with woven cotton material that looked
like the stuff sold as polishing cloth. Being a child of the great
depression he was dead against anything he saw as unnecesary expense,
but obviously liked the idea of filtering his oil. I've always
suspected a paper element does it much better with a lot less stuffing
about. :)
--
John H
John_H
Who ever bothered to crank an engine to test the spark? :)
The quick easy way was to lift the distributor cap and pull out the
centre HT lead then operate the points with a screwdriver. It also
allowed you to test the rotor button for tracking... a very common
fault that frequently wasn't diagnosed until after the rest of the
ignition system had been replaced (nor would it usually show up as
lack of spark when cranking).
--
John H
Noddy
> There used to a significant number of Finer Filter fans here... most
> of whom thought they worked better than the original paper element for
> a fraction of the cost.
>
> AFAIK the original bog roll filter was the Frantz and they're still
> readily available. I'd imagine they're probably not as popular as
> they once were, if only because of the effort involved. And of course
> they're a bypass filter. Frantz also claimed it wasn't ever necesary
> to change the oil.
Nice :)
> My old man, who was a mechanic, had different type on all his own cars
> but I've no idea what the brand was. It used a perforated metal
> cannister he used to repack with woven cotton material that looked
> like the stuff sold as polishing cloth. Being a child of the great
> depression he was dead against anything he saw as unnecesary expense,
> but obviously liked the idea of filtering his oil. I've always
> suspected a paper element does it much better with a lot less stuffing
> about. :)
Me too.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> Who ever bothered to crank an engine to test the spark? :)
>
> The quick easy way was to lift the distributor cap and pull out the
> centre HT lead then operate the points with a screwdriver. It also
> allowed you to test the rotor button for tracking... a very common
> fault that frequently wasn't diagnosed until after the rest of the
> ignition system had been replaced (nor would it usually show up as
> lack of spark when cranking).
That's how I'd normally do it, but on the side of the road in the dark
without tools I'd just pull a lead off, pull back the boot and hold the lead
near an earth point while cranking the engine.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
pedro
Good point. Maybe it was when checking for "no spark" that we lifted
the oill filler rather than remove the dizzy cap. The toolbox would
have been under a shitload of camping gear in the boot at the time.
'twas nearly 40 years ago, maybe a bit fuzzy now as CRAFT slowly
creeps into the equation.
John_H
>"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>news:srcv96pkuss6saqm0...@4ax.com...
>
>> Who ever bothered to crank an engine to test the spark? :)
>>
>> The quick easy way was to lift the distributor cap and pull out the
>> centre HT lead then operate the points with a screwdriver.
>
>without tools I'd just pull a lead off, pull back the boot and hold the lead
>near an earth point while cranking the engine.
I'd be even less inclined to do it that way on the side of the road in
woop woop. The reason being to conserve the battery until cranking is
absolutely necessary. No bigger PITA than trying to fault find with a
flat battery... especially when you don't know how much cranking the
driver's already done.
--
John H
Noddy
> I'd be even less inclined to do it that way on the side of the road in
> woop woop. The reason being to conserve the battery until cranking is
> absolutely necessary. No bigger PITA than trying to fault find with a
> flat battery... especially when you don't know how much cranking the
> driver's already done.
I suppose so, but at the end of the day if the car's an auto and the battery
is discharged to the point where a second or two of cranking is going to
take it out for good then you were most likely never going to get it started
anyway.
Of course, if it was a Powerglide you can push start the thing if you're
prepared to "bumper" the car up to around 45 miles per hour :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jason James
A better idea, is to put your tool up a sparkplug lead (I cant do this as
mine wont fit), then bridge the starter for an instant,..if you hit the
underside of the bonnet with your head,..you know the spark is Jake...
Jason
Jason James
3 times I've come across Holdens with the rotor cut-out boss sheared. What
appears to happen, is the rotor over time climbs out from the dizzy shaft.
Once the rotational torque exceeds the strrength of the remaining
bakelite,..SSssnnnnaaAAP!
Jason
Jason James
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:38:10 +1000, Kev <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>pedro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:15:08 +1000, John_H<john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't forget that the Hemi 6 post dates the EH by around 5 years.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO it's also by far the best popular straight six that ever was and
>>>> far, far more durable than anything GMH had ever built. Aside from
>>>> timing chains their useful life was at least double that of any Holden
>>>> of the same era.
>>>
>>> And therein lies one of the design weaknesses of the red motor - the
>>> fibre timing gear. They could fail, and did, and far more often than
>>> in the grey. One night in the early 70's we came upon an HR sitting
>>> on the side of the highway (about 10k east of Yellowdine) with an
>>> elderly couple on board. Stopped to see if they were all right - as
>>> you did in those days - he wasn't about to walk for help as he
>>> wouldn't leave her alone at night out there, and didn't know how far
>>> "help" was.
>>>
>>> Did the usual tests, spark, had fuel, cranked OK, seemed to have
>>> compression. Pulled the oil filler cap and found the rockers weren't
>>> moving when we cranked it. Timing gear shot.
>>
>>
>>why did you need to lift the oil cap?
>>just turning the thing over you should have heard the lack of
>>compression from the cyls that had open/bent valves as well as the blow
>>back though the carb
>
> 1. No bent valves on those motors.
Correct,..our 173 dumped its cam gear at around 140 kph. All the teeth were
gone as the engine spun down to a stop,..but no valve damage.
> 2. First thing we did was a crank test, to see if it was going to
> pop/fart/explode/whatever. It gave enough sound like compression
> (obviously a fair number of valves were still closed ...) No
> blow-back audible. Air cleaner removed after that to check fuel
> entry.
cranked fast enuff, and it probably would fire up the carby.
Jason
atec77
the ej apart from one hr van with a nissan motor , but several xflow
fords that I broke number two timing chains a cam and a crank
The crank was the xflow in a 66 transit on a steady pull up a slope in
3rd , it just went bang and stopped )
Had done that climb to the house hundreds of times
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Jason James
"DC" <us...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JqadnflMypl2GQLR...@westnet.com.au...
They used to sel "Quinten Hazelton" pumps for $15 at servos for red motors.
OTOH, cars which use a rubber belt, often have beefed up pumps to extend WP
life. 19mm dsrive shafts and oversize seals and bearings. (eg Toyota 2.2 L
5sfe donk in Camrys)
Jason
hippo
>
> On 9/25/2010 4:54 PM, John_H wrote:
>
> > The second
> > is EFI, which avoids the rich fuel/air mixtures inherent to
> > carburettors and the resulting high bore wear on cold starts.
>
> I hadn't thought of that aspect of EFI. Probably only an issue for
> forgetful people who don't turn off the choke, like me!
>
> Jordan
>
>
Ah yes... the 'handbag holder', as a friend's mum called it!
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Noddy
"Athol" <athol_S...@idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:12855745...@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
> I thought that only worked on the early ones that had a second pump at
> the rear. That was deleted from the design before they even went to an
> aluminium casing, AFAIK. Certainly long before any 'glides were used
> in Holdens.
I've done it once before and it worked.
Years ago on a camping trip to a little place called Dargo in Eastern
Victoria my brother had a HD Holden sedan with a glide in it and it shit the
starter the day before we were due to leave for home. I pulled it out and
tossed it in the boot after a local said he had one that he'd give us and
took off to get it, but when he came back the started he had was off
something else and didn't fit. Faced with the prospect of towing the car all
the way home we decided to give pushing it a try (I had a HK Wagon at the
time) and the thing started at a bit over 40mph on the Speedo.
It drove all the way home with the starter in the boot and never missed a
beat.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
hippo
>
> Doug Jewell wrote:
> > On 25/09/2010 12:57 PM, Andy wrote:
> >> Doug Jewell wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> http://fat.ly/o4ov3
> >>>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> In its 46 years of use, the vehicle has only clocked up
> >>> 150,000 miles (241,400km).
> >>
> >> Bah, barely broken in! Strange that it'd be on it's second engine with
> >> such low mileage though.
> > Nah - not surprising. Back in the 70s and 80s, when my family had a
> > bunch of old holdens between my parents and us kids, there was almost
> > always a red engine at some stage of rebuild. If N was the number of
> > cars in the family, we always had N+1 red engines, that way when one
> > died we'd just swap it over with the last rebuilt one. They were good
> > engines for the time, but didn't last a fraction of the time a modern
> > engine does. As you suggest, for a modern six you wouldn't expect to
> > have to do anything internal to the motor until 2 to 3 hundred thousand
> > kays. Back in those days, a rebuild would have been pretty common at
> > about 30-50 thousand miles.
> >
> > Then there was the constant carby tuning. A stop for petrol included
> > topping up the oil (remember when servo's used to have pint bottles of
> > oil next to the bowser?). The first thing we always used to do was get
> > the local radiator bloke to make us up a custom larger radiator so the
> > things would stay cool in summer too. You changed the thermostat every
> > six months - at the start of summer & start of winter. Always carried a
> > spare set of plugs, points and capacitor in case it stopped somewhere,
> > and always had a can of WD40 in case it stopped on a rainy/foggy day.
> > Ahh the memories...
>
> he tried to tell us that fitting a points distributor to another guys XB
> panel van engine(older Ford 2V 6cyl) he was rebuilding was the best option
>
> This recoed dizzy cost $100 more than a brand new electronic unit and of
> course now the guy has to reset/replace the bloody points every
> 10,000klms or so
>
> Same guy also fucked about getting it set up for a 350 Holley carb for
> more than double the cost of fitting a Weber setup from an XF. Which the
> poor guy ended up with when they Holley setup still performed like shit
> compared to the weber setup. and of course he's now a bit worried about
> the quality of work on the rest of the engine
>
>
> > compared to the modern cars, where you check the oil occasionally,
> > pretty much never have to top it up, only do the 6 month oil change and
> > occasional spark plug replacements, and otherwise pretty much never
> > touch the engine.
> >
> > The old cars looked good though, but despite all the fond memories, they
> > really were buckets of junk when you look at them objectively. One of
> > the things I'd like to do is get an old E series holden for the nice
> > looking body, but put as much engine and running gear out of a VN or
> > later commodore into it to get some reliability.
>
>
> which of course you would only use on club days and not as a daily
> driver since they have no crash protection if you were ever involved in
> any decent traffic crash
>
>
> Kev
>
>
"Ah yes sonny, but they built proper cars then out of real metal that
didn't crumple up in an accident like the tinfoil rubbish they use these
days. If my (insert 30s - 60s rustbucket of choice here) hit one of these
modern things, they'd write the new one off on the spot and I'd be able to
drive on home.... blah, blah, blah.... dribble dribble...."
:)
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Kev
>
> "Ah yes sonny, but they built proper cars then out of real metal that
> didn't crumple up in an accident like the tinfoil rubbish they use these
> days. If my (insert 30s - 60s rustbucket of choice here) hit one of these
> modern things, they'd write the new one off on the spot and I'd be able to
> drive on home.... blah, blah, blah.... dribble dribble...."
> :)
>
Heh
sounds just like the idiot I described
Some people just can't grasp the fact that new cars are built to protect
the Passengers and sacrifice the car
Kev
Jordan
If my (insert 30s - 60s rustbucket of choice here) hit one of these
> modern things, they'd write the new one off on the spot and I'd be able to
> drive on home
That's not a rare anecdote, but has it ever been tested? I think mass
must count for a lot, in terms of survival. So, maybe a '60s big car
would "beat" a new hatch?
What's rustbucket got to do with it - are you just being nasty to old
cars, you meany?
Jordan
Toby Ponsenby
postulated:
Yeah we get the idea - if the WP is driven by the
cam belt - very popular trick lately - a stuffed
WP bearing results in cam belt slippage when the
WP shaft flops about.
Add overlap cam timing and Voila! A recipe for
disaster.
IIRC, Fiat V6's more or less pioneered this method
of boosting engine part sales , and plenty have
followed in their erstwhile footsteps.
Noddy
"Jordan" <ko...@koora.net> wrote in message
news:0A0oo.493$Bv4...@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
> That's not a rare anecdote, but has it ever been tested?
Comprehensively right here:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3411755/crash_test_1959_chevy_bel_air/
I think it's a shame to destroy a classic car just to make a point that
everyone already knows, but this video dispells the myth forever that older
cars are safer.
>I think mass must count for a lot, in terms of survival. So, maybe a '60s
>big car would "beat" a new hatch?
Well, I'll put it this way:
If you arranged a test where a '56 model Cadillac and a 2010 Hyundai Getz
were run into each other at 100km/h and pointed a gun at my head and said I
had to be in one of them, I'd take my chances in the Caddy. I'd probably get
pretty banged up, but I'd wager that the Getz would be turned into an
unrecognisable pile of scrap. That's not to say that the Getz is an unsafe
car or the Caddy is a safe one, but the sheer bulk of the Caddy would see
the Getz be used as it's crumple zone at the expense of the occupants of the
Getz.
However, if you changed the equation slightly by removing the Getz and
swapping it for something that has a bit more mass itself like a 2010
Statesman or a Ford Territory then I'd take the Holden or Ford anyday.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jason James
"Jordan" <ko...@koora.net> wrote in message
news:0A0oo.493$Bv4...@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
crossing in west Dubbo. The car was hit on the passenger's side and bent
like a bananna,..she walked away. Now that type of accident is not typical
of many car-accidents, but the heavy gauge steel used in Valiants and large
american-style cars in general in the '70s did play a large part.
Jason
Jason James
"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4ca0a66c$0$12330$c30e...@exi-reader.telstra.net...
Bugger them for destroying a nice Chevy from the goldrn years of automobile
styling !! :-) The thin gauge plastic fantastic other vehicle is no great
loss...
Jason
Jordan
> has it ever been tested?
>
> Comprehensively right here:
>
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3411755/crash_test_1959_chevy_bel_air/
>
> I think it's a shame to destroy a classic car just to make a point that
> everyone already knows, but this video dispells the myth forever that older
> cars are safer.
>
>> I think mass must count for a lot, in terms of survival. So, maybe a '60s
>> big car would "beat" a new hatch?
>
> Well, I'll put it this way:
>
> If you arranged a test where a '56 model Cadillac and a 2010 Hyundai Getz
> were run into each other at 100km/h and pointed a gun at my head and said I
> had to be in one of them, I'd take my chances in the Caddy.
Probably a wise choice. There's not much difference in weight between
the 2 Chevs in the test - less than 100 kg. But a Getz is another half a
tonne lighter.
Jordan
Noddy
> Probably a wise choice. There's not much difference in weight between the
> 2 Chevs in the test - less than 100 kg. But a Getz is another half a tonne
> lighter.
The thing is though that if you replaced the '59 Chev in that test with a
'10 Getz, the Getz would probably fare a whole lot better.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
pedro
>A better idea, is to put your tool up a sparkplug lead (I cant do this as
>mine wont fit), then bridge the starter for an instant,..if you hit the
>underside of the bonnet with your head,..you know the spark is Jake...
Mine won't either. It's narrow enough but these plug-lead boots are
sooo long ;-)
Jordan
I think you mean replace the newer Chev? We want to see an old
heavyweight vs new lightweight test.
It'd be good to see a similar demonstration to settle that adequate
crumple really trumps dead weight in a head-on.
Jordan
Oz...@crackerbox-palace.com
It does...there's no contest.
It's all about reducing G loads on passengers
OzOne of the three twins
I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
Jordan
>
>> It'd be good to see a similar demonstration to settle that adequate
>> crumple really trumps dead weight in a head-on.
>>
>> Jordan
>
> It does...there's no contest.
> It's all about reducing G loads on passengers
>
I'd like to believe it, but haven't seen evidence yet. The video
mentioned is of 2 cars of similar weights, not a heavy oldie vs a light
new "crumpler".
Greater weight has the effect of reducing G forces too, for the
passengers within that car.
Jordan
Noddy
> I think you mean replace the newer Chev?
No, I meant what I said. Replace the old Batwing Chev with a Getz to show
how much better the smaller Getz (or any other new small car for that
matter) would be compared to the much larger 50 year old lump of iron.
> We want to see an old heavyweight vs new lightweight test.
It'd be interesting viewing, but it's not really relevant as there are very
few old large cars on the roads these days. The point of this particular
video was to show how far cars had come in 50 years in terms of the amount
of accident protection afforded to their occupants, and to dispell the myth
that older cars are safer because they're "stronger".
The Batwing Chev was a pretty rigid car, yet it folded up like it was made
of paper and it's driver would have been very seriously injured if not
killed in such a prang. The driver of the late model Chev might have walked
away with a seat belt burn and powdery eyes from the airbag.
> It'd be good to see a similar demonstration to settle that adequate
> crumple really trumps dead weight in a head-on.
There is no argument that crumple zones are very effective, but like
anything else there is a limit.
You can have the very best crumple zones in the world on a given car, but
they'll only work up to a certain point. Hit that car with something big and
heavy enough and the capacity of the zones will be exceeded causing a breach
of the passenger compartment and a fair amount of death and destruction. Car
versus truck type accidents are a really good example of how crumple zones
can only do so much.
It's like dropping a raw egg onto a pillow. Drop it from 5 feet high and the
pillow will be an effective crumple zone that will absorb the energy and
allow the egg to survive intact. Drop it from 40 feet high and the egg will
be scrambled as the pillow doesn't have the capacity to absorb the increased
about of energy.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
> I'd like to believe it, but haven't seen evidence yet.
Then you're not looking. The evidence of the benefits of crumple zones is
indisputable.
> The video mentioned is of 2 cars of similar weights, not a heavy oldie vs
> a light new "crumpler".
The video was a demonstration of the effects of 50 years of research and
development in automotive engineering. It was designed to show how vastly
superior new cars are at protecting people than old clunkers, and it did a
pretty damn good job if you ask me. Obviously the producers set out to give
a dramatic display, but could only ever give people a general idea due to
the lack of available old cars people would be willing to sacrifice to make
a point. As it was I think more than a few people would have been a little
annoyed that a fine example of a batwing Chev was destroyed just to
highlight what most people already knew anyway.
It's unlikely that you'll ever see the type of demonstration that you're
talking about as the results are a foregone conclusion anyway in that the
essential argument of "big versus small" almost always sees "small" come off
second best. You don't need to find another batwing Chev to see that, as you
can get the same results by running over a Getz with a Land Cruiser.
However, if you *really* wanted to see the benefits of new cars versus old,
then you'd need to repeat the test by then running said Land Cruiser over
something like an early 60's Mini Minor or Volkswagen Beetle.
> Greater weight has the effect of reducing G forces too, for the passengers
> within that car.
Yep, larger cars tend to use smaller ones as *their* crumple zones. It's
part of the reason some people who drive small cars complain about sharing
the roads with "behemoth" 4wd's as they're worried about the risks they face
of one running into them. It's a stupid argument in my opinion as people are
responsible for their *own* choices and if the choice *they* made gives them
cause to be concerned then they need to re-evaluate their logic.
As good as crumple zones and other modern safety features are, no one as yet
has come up with a way to defy the laws of physics. They've had a pretty
good crack at it though, and there is absolutely no doubt that, pound for
pound, cars are *much* safer today than they were in 1959.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Kev
The vid from 5th Gear where they crashed a "Smart" car into a concrete
barrier @ 70mph was a good example, the front(what little there is)
crumpled flat but left the passenger compartment almost completely
intact, they could even open both doors
even with this though the occupants brains would have been turned to
mush as it slammed into the front of their skull
They also had some crashes between a Landy Disco and a much lighter
Renault Espace(with much less front end too) but the espace fared much
better than the disco for survivability
Kev
Oz...@crackerbox-palace.com
The only reduction in the greater mass vehicle is by the small ability
to move the vehicle of lower mass.
If you look you'll see that newer cars are pretty much as weighty as
the old ones because of all the additional equipment they carry.
Passengers in the old vehicle benefit from the crumpling of the modern
vehicle.
Noddy
"Kev" <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ca175a0$0$316$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> The vid from 5th Gear where they crashed a "Smart" car into a concrete
> barrier @ 70mph was a good example, the front(what little there is)
> crumpled flat but left the passenger compartment almost completely intact,
> they could even open both doors
> even with this though the occupants brains would have been turned to mush
> as it slammed into the front of their skull
If it's the video I saw that someone posted a link to on Youtube it hit the
barrier at a glancing angle rather than head on, which would have greatly
reduced the amount of damage. The car did survive well though, and I would
have thought that if it had passengers they would have lived to talk about
it.
> They also had some crashes between a Landy Disco and a much lighter
> Renault Espace(with much less front end too) but the espace fared much
> better than the disco for survivability
I think I saw those as well, and the Landy's biggest problem was it's
propensity to roll over.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Kev
> "Kev"<kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4ca175a0$0$316$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> The vid from 5th Gear where they crashed a "Smart" car into a concrete
>> barrier @ 70mph was a good example, the front(what little there is)
>> crumpled flat but left the passenger compartment almost completely intact,
>> they could even open both doors
>> even with this though the occupants brains would have been turned to mush
>> as it slammed into the front of their skull
>
> If it's the video I saw that someone posted a link to on Youtube it hit the
> barrier at a glancing angle rather than head on, which would have greatly
> reduced the amount of damage. The car did survive well though, and I would
> have thought that if it had passengers they would have lived to talk about
> it.
Not according to the medical personnel there
Kev
Jordan
>
> If you look you'll see that newer cars are pretty much as weighty as
> the old ones because of all the additional equipment they carry.
> Passengers in the old vehicle benefit from the crumpling of the modern
> vehicle.
>
There are modern heavies, but I'm under the impression there are a
bigger proportion of small light cars on the roads than there used to be
before the 1970s oil crisis? I might be wrong about that.
What does seem clear though is that the chances of cars hitting each
other is much greater because of the explosion in numbers of all
vehicles. Having good handling and braking, as well as crumple zones and
air bags, wasn't so important at a time when you had a chance of sliding
to a stop without contacting another car.
Jordan
Noddy
> There are modern heavies, but I'm under the impression there are a bigger
> proportion of small light cars on the roads than there used to be before
> the 1970s oil crisis? I might be wrong about that.
There's certainly a hell of a lot more smaller cars on the market today than
there was 40 years ago, so it'd be fair to assume that's the case.
It's also worth bearing in mind that while there seems to be an ever
increasing number of small cars on the roads, the remaining big cars have
become as "soft" and "collision friendly" as anything else meaning that if
you were to have a head on collision with a 2 tonne Commodore whilst driving
your Nissan Micra you'd fare *much* better than if you had a head on with a
'66 Chevy Impala.
The obvious exceptions to the rule are the Toorak Tractors like the Land
Cruiser, Patrol and anything else of their ilk. The manufacturers of these
vehicles are starting to conform to crash user friendliness, but they're a
*long* way behind your average car, and they have the double-whammy effect
of being rigid *and* tall which tends to make them drive over the top of
whatever they hit and squash it.
> What does seem clear though is that the chances of cars hitting each other
> is much greater because of the explosion in numbers of all vehicles.
Indeed.
> Having good handling and braking, as well as crumple zones and air bags,
> wasn't so important at a time when you had a chance of sliding to a stop
> without contacting another car.
I don't think vehicle safety was any less important in 1974 than it is
today. It's just that the technology didn't extend much beyond seat belts
and radial tyres in those days. I'm sure that if you could go back in time
and ask new car buyers if they'd like anti-lock brakes, air bags, crumple
zones and whatever other safety features you find as standard equipment on
today's cars most of them would probably say "yes".
--
Regards,
Noddy.
DC
> There are modern heavies, but I'm under the impression there are a
> bigger proportion of small light cars on the roads than there used to be
> before the 1970s oil crisis? I might be wrong about that.
> What does seem clear though is that the chances of cars hitting each
> other is much greater because of the explosion in numbers of all
> vehicles. Having good handling and braking, as well as crumple zones and
> air bags, wasn't so important at a time when you had a chance of sliding
> to a stop without contacting another car.
We've always had congestion so I'm not sure your theory holds true. On
the other hand, the proportion of drunk drivers is probably a lot less
now and the quality of our roads (at least in terms of traffic
engineering) has improved.
Jordan
> Jordan said the following on 28/09/2010 7:42 PM:
>> other is much greater because of the explosion in numbers of all
>> vehicles. Having good handling and braking, as well as crumple zones and
>> air bags, wasn't so important at a time when you had a chance of sliding
>> to a stop without contacting another car.
>
> We've always had congestion so I'm not sure your theory holds true. On
> the other hand, the proportion of drunk drivers is probably a lot less
> now and the quality of our roads (at least in terms of traffic
> engineering) has improved.
In the 1960's, if you went into Sydney CBD on a Saturday afternoon you'd
see very few cars - moving or parked. On Sundays there were almost none.
Through the '70s, there was discernibly less traffic on weekends,
everywhere. Now it's full-time peakhour conditions in many areas.
Too right about drunk drivers. The year following introduction of Random
Breath Tests, the NSW road death toll was half that previously.
Environmental standards have had to be improved, to cope with burgeoning
vehicle numbers. I grew up in Western Sydney on a dirt road, and never
saw an accident then, except when a cat got run over by an EK. There
were far fewer cars and people. I think we need to be mindful of what
progress is. The technology improvements we rely on are arguably just to
keep the playing field roughly level.
It's a bit depressing to see exceedingly capable cars stuck still in
grid-lock - a common sight!
Jordan
Jordan
>
> I don't think vehicle safety was any less important in 1974 than it is
> today. It's just that the technology didn't extend much beyond seat belts
> and radial tyres in those days. I'm sure that if you could go back in time
> and ask new car buyers if they'd like anti-lock brakes, air bags, crumple
> zones and whatever other safety features you find as standard equipment on
> today's cars most of them would probably say "yes".
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>
>
Those are good points. If you're in a big old clanger, better to look
for a soft small car to run into preferably!
Jordan