What's the towing capacity of a 72 Dodge Dart?
E.L. Lambert
I'm thrilled, because I need something to tow my monster 4x4 rig
around with. I know this may not be the ultimate towing vehicle, but
it has to be better than my other cars:
1) 2001 Honda Civic EX. Owner's manual states: "Towing with this
vehicle is not recommended. Towing with this vehicle will void the
warranty."
2) 1998 Jeep Wrangler Sahara, jacked up with a 6 inch suspension lift,
disconnected sway bar, locking differential, and 35 inch tires. This
is the 4x4 in question, so obviously it can't tow itself. While it is
street legal, and I can drive it to various destinations, driving it
for more than 50 miles at a time on the highway is very unpleasant, as
you will have guessed if you understand what the above specifications
mean. Plus, even if I could use the jeep to tow something, its
miniscule wheelbase rules out everything but a small jet ski or
luggage carrier.
I wanna go to Moab next year, which is a 1500 mile drive from my
house. Driving the jeep is pretty much out of the question....
unless I maintained a top speed of about 40mph my off-road tires would
melt.
So I'm wondering if it's safe to haul it with the Dodge. Total empty
jeep weight is about 2800 lbs. I don't have a trailer or tow dolly
yet, so I don't know the additional weigght that will add, but I'm
guessing the trailer will add no more than an additional 1000 lbs.
The Dodge Dart may not have the best brakes, but its wheelbase and
engine beat the crap out of the Civic... I think if I drive sensibly,
leave plenty of room, and use the gears when going through the
Rockies, I should be fine. Anyone disagree? Am I living on the edge
even trying this?
Daniel J. Stern
> I just inherited a 1972 Dodge Dart Swinger slant-6 automatic.
> I'm thrilled, because I need something to tow my monster 4x4 rig
> around with.
> I know this may not be the ultimate towing vehicle,
> I wanna go to Moab next year, which is a 1500 mile drive
> Jeep weight is about 2800 lbs. I don't have a trailer or tow dolly
> yet, so I don't know the additional weigght that will add, but I'm
> guessing the trailer will add no more than an additional 1000 lbs.
*sigh*
<shaking head>
As with last week's idea about jacking up the rear end, you're fixin' to
ruin that car. It would seem it does not meet your desires or needs.
Strongly suggest you take advantage of the fact that many people will
happily pay good money for a low-miles Dart and buy something that meets
your needs and wants. You have a Slant-6 Dart with 9" drum brakes,
"Grammaw" torsion bars and leaf springs, and a 2.76 ratio 7 1/4" rear
axle. If you tow anywhere near that much weight, not only will the car be
dangerously slow on anything but downhill roads, but you are extremely
likely to kill yourself or someone else and destroy the car into the
bargain with those 9" drum brakes. Perhaps all of us who must share the
highway with you will be lucky enough not to be in the vicinity when (not
"if") it happens. Perhaps YOU will be lucky enough not to be in the line
of fire when a spider gear lets go and comes rocketing out the case of
your 7 1/4" rear axle (I've seen these punch through floorpans...).
> I think if I drive sensibly, leave plenty of room, and use the gears
> when going through the Rockies, I should be fine.
*THROUGH THE ROCKIES??!!!!*
What you propose is utterly foolhardy, could accurately be called suicidal
and borders on murderous. If by some miracle, you manage not to put
twisted metal and blood all over the highway, I'm sure there are plenty of
people who'd be sufficiently pissed at your flagrant abuse of a low-miles
Dart that they'd make up for that miracle.
DON'T do it. If you don't have the proper equipment to do what you want
to do, either DON'T, or go get the proper equipment.
I have to ask: Are you serious? You're not having us on, are you? I
almost kinda wonder...
DS
E.W. Lambeth
other day both on here and in email... actually I was working on a private
email to you about this idea. I'm just learning here... There's no need to
be rude or insulting.
Fact is, as I said before, I have never before owned a car made before
1990. I know next to nothing about this car, in fact I haven't even taken
delivery of it yet. I admit as much and I'm trying to ask some questions
and learn. So forgive me if I'm not an expert right off the bat.
I first wanted to make it into a street rod. Feedback on that was pretty
negative, so I took heed of the advice I got and scaled back my plans to
maybe a new paint job, wheels, and brakes. Now I'm thinking about other
uses. One thing I really need is a tow vehicle, so I thought I'd ask around
and see if this could fill that niche. If you're telling me that I'm trying
to put a square peg in a round hole, then fine, I appreciate the advice and
I'll find some other use for it. I don't think I deserve to be berated for
jiust asking the question.
Again, I realize the internet and news groups kinda lend themselves to
abuse, but there's no need to be rude. I'm a total newbie here and just
because I'm not an expert mechanic doesn't mean I need to be talked down to.
I haven't done ANYTHING yet, much less "ruined" the car, I'm just working
on ideas. This could be a fun project car, I just need to figure out the
right project. And no, I don't want to sell it, for personal, family
politics, and emotional reasons I don't want to get into.
Now, I hope I don't get flayed alive for this, so please only answer if you
think you can do so without going off on me, but just out of curiosity, can
anyone tell me what the actual rated towing capacity of this car is? (I'm
wondering if I could at least use it to tow a jet ski to the beach, if that
doesn't offend anyone too badly.)
Next idea I have, I'll be sure to think twice before asking. Public mockery
isn't something that sits well with me.
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.01090...@azure.engin.umich.edu...
RandyBlizzard
engine and tiny brakes could cost you your skin with that much weight behind
you. As in the movie, "The Long, Long Trailer", "Better get a heavier car-
it'll be a big saving in the end." Perhaps you should consider a lumbering C
body. My 77 Gran Fury tows my 31 foot Airstream just great!. Maybe even a Dodge
P/U.
Good Luck,
Mopar Randy
Art Begun
in a used book store. I had a 71 Dart Swinger. Keep that
thing off ice. I used to live in Rochester, NY and even
with brand new snow tire and driving like a grandma I would
often feel the rear end moving towards the front. By the
way I had disc brakes on mine. Cost me a mint because the
salt would attack them and ruin the mechanism. Those things
just such gas as if it costs 39 cents/gallon. Remember the
good old days. They actually weren't all that good.
"E.W. Lambeth" <elamb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:W%el7.9241$ln4.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.
..
Daniel J. Stern
> I would think you should be able to find a Chilton someplace
> in a used book store.
He might, but for not much more money, he could have an acceptable
(FACTORY) service manual without the errors present in the Chilton and
Haynes books.
> I had a 71 Dart Swinger. Keep that thing off ice. I used to live in
> Rochester, NY and even with brand new snow tire and driving like a
> grandma I would often feel the rear end moving towards the front.
Sounds like your driving skills, maintenance practices and/or tire
selection were...suboptimal. I drove my '65 through many Denver winters
and a couple Oregon ice storms without the dramatics you mention.
> I had disc brakes on mine.
Me too.
> Cost me a mint because the
> salt would attack them and ruin the mechanism.
The sign of improperly-rebuilt disc brake calipers. Properly-done ones
don't cost much more than thrown-together junk.
> Those things just such gas as if it costs 39 cents/gallon.
Sounds like more confirmation of substandard maintenance; my '65, which in
its final setup was within a hair of the weight of a '71, regularly got
20 mpg.
> Remember the good old days. They actually weren't all that good.
Well, put it this way: The "goodness" of the old days required more
participation to make it happen.
DS
Barry A. Lee
pricing in perspective has not changed that much just our perspective of
it.
Barry A. Lee
Steve
"E.L. Lambert" wrote:
> I just inherited a 1972 Dodge Dart Swinger slant-6 automatic.
>
> I'm thrilled, because I need something to tow my monster 4x4 rig
> around with. I know this may not be the ultimate towing vehicle, but
> it has to be better than my other cars:
The chassis, engine, and (most of) the drivetrain are capable of doing
what you want, but given that it was originally sold as a granny-type
Dart, it will need some upgrades.
At a minimum:
1) larger brakes, preferably 73-76 A-body disk brakes. This is first on
the list for a reason. If you don't go disk, PUHLEEEZE go to larger
drums. The 9" drums that A-bodies came with were one of Chrysler's very
few outright engineering foobars.
2) Additional cooling for the engine and transmission in the form of a
26" radiator (if not already equipped) and an auxiliary tranny cooler. (A
tranny rebuild with extra clutch plates would help too- have it rebuilt
as if it were a V8 904 instead of a slant-six 904. Best- find a (fairly
rare) slant-six A-727.)
3) AT LEAST a 3.23 rear end ratio. The slant six has a lot of torque for
its size, but still less than the next engine up the food chain, the 318
v8.
4) AT LEAST an 8-1/4 rear end instead of the 7-1/4 it probably has now.
The 7-1/4 is prone to grenade in granny driving, let alone towing.
5) Good sized (215-70R14 is adequate, 225 better) modern radial tires
mounted on a minimum of 14x6" rims.
6) Heavier torsion bars up front, extra leafs in the rear springs
7) sway bars, front minimum, front and rear preferred.
All of this is very doable, very availble, and not prohibitively
expensive for a do-it-yourselfer. But it really should be done before
towing- anything less is just needless abuse of a very nice old car.
Steve
Art Begun wrote:
> Those things
> just such gas as if it costs 39 cents/gallon. Remember the
> good old days.
Suck gas??? A SLANT SIX???? If you can't get 20 MPG out of a slant six
Dart, something is seriously wrong.
> They actually weren't all that good.
Better than the plastic jellybeans we drive today.
Daniel J. Stern
Pardon me if I am a little easy to trigger on "Is this for real?". There
have been a LOT of the equivalent of "tire kickers" just trolling for
responses over the years...it tends to jade one.
So...sorry for the tone.
You really definitely don't wanna do what you're asking about without
*extensive* vehicle modifications. We're looking at bigger brakes front
and rear, bigger tires, bigger torsion bars (= front springs), bigger leaf
springs (rear springs) an 8 1/4" or 8 3/4" rear axle (so it'll stay
together) with a 3.23 ratio (so you can do more than 14 mph over the
mountain passes), a much bigger radiator (so the engine doesn't overheat),
HD shocks and some other stuff...minimum...to make it suitable for the
load you're gonna ask of it...and that is BEFORE adding the hitch!
> Next idea I have, I'll be sure to think twice before asking. Public mockery
> isn't something that sits well with me.
Well, I did not exactly intend public mockery, so I'm sorry if that is how
it came across. I was trying to give voice through text to the extreme
danger of doing as you proposed.
DS
D-Day
trailer was equipped with electric brakes? He might find this option on a
used trailer for less than completely upgrading the car brakes.
Just a thought. I've never towed anything that long distance so am just
wondering aloud.
--
Remove .NOSPAM to Reply
Daniel J. Stern <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.01090...@azure.engin.umich.edu...
>
Art Begun
The Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth dealers up there were terrible
and Chyrsler was almost bankrupt during this period. I had
one with the neat steering wheel that had the rubber horn
ring in the wheel that you squeezed. Well try to get that
fixed when it rotted out. The initial factory brakes were
locked up by rust (I was poor and had no garage) after 2
seasons in the salted ice (the car was previously in a
warmer climate). The second mechanisms lasted no longer.
The engine ran like a smooth sewing machine but sucked gas.
It probably got 20 miles per gallon but that's pretty poor
by today's standards.
I had one of my most exciting near misses in that car. One
winter in Rochester we had 160 inches of snow. Every day
going to work it was like driving in a blizzard. Finally in
April it thawed. I was excited by spring and didn't realize
that the weather had suddenly changed and there was an
almost invisible mist falling and icing the exits. I took
an exit and suddenly had no traction. The rear end spun out
in front of me and I almost go over the edge but I'm lucky
the tires grab some dirt and stop the car. I'm saying my
prayers of thanks and look down and realize that below me it
was a salvage yard. Would have been a perfect landing into
a junk yard. As I get ready to go, another car duplicates
my feat and looks like he's going to hit me and knock me off
the cliff. Somehow he stops next to me. We wave and both
drive off to live another day.
I sold the car to someone who had a VW bug. Indeed he found
the Swinger superior... especially on dates.
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.01090...@azure.engin.umi
ch.edu...
Steve Fleckenstein
My Dad had a 1970 225 automatic bare bones Dart he used for commuting to
NYC. Later he got a 15 foot boat and trailer and towed it with the Dart. We
would pile the entire family into the car (5 of us plus dog) load up the
trunk and then the boat on the back. The only suspension mod was Sears coil
over shocks in the rear. The weak point was the differential. Once fully
loaded it overheated and blew up on the Throgs Neck Bridge. Blew a hole
right out of the top of the pumpkin. For some unknown reason we got over the
bridge, into Queens to my Grandparents driveway where it refused to go any
further. My Grandfather drove us back up to Rockland where we took my Moms
389 v8 1965 Grand Prix (12mpg , premium leaded) , drove back down to a junk
yard in Jamaica, bought an entire rear end including brakes, tossed it in
the trunk of the Grand Prix and closed the lid (that trunk was huge) and
spent the weekend swapping out the differential in the Dart instead of
fishing at East Moriches. We still used the Dart to tow after that and never
had any future tow troubles with the car.
20 mpg was great compared to 12mpg of the Grand Prix 389 4bbl v8 but I could
blow away cars with the Grand Prix that I couldn't touch with the Dart. The
Dart torsion bar front end was tight handling compared to GM and Ford
offerings. I have alot of respect for torsion bar design.. even when I
changed a broken torsion bar one winter in my 73 Fury. BTW The Dart met
its end at 123,000 miles when my sister wedged it between two trees on black
ice one winter night. It was getting a bit rusty by then.
Steve
| The engine ran like a smooth sewing machine but sucked gas.
| It probably got 20 miles per gallon but that's pretty poor
| by today's standards.
The only thing that was probably better back then was a VW bug
| I sold the car to someone who had a VW bug. Indeed he found
| the Swinger superior... especially on dates.
I had a $150 66 Buick LeSabre for dates. Seats were as big as a living room
couch. 340 cu inch v8 with 2 speed automatic.
Daniel J. Stern
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, D-Day wrote:
> Daniel and Steve, wouldn't the braking situation be helped somewhat if the
> trailer was equipped with electric brakes? He might find this option on a
> used trailer for less than completely upgrading the car brakes.
> Just a thought. I've never towed anything that long distance so am just
> wondering aloud.
>
D-Day:
No. The 9" drum brakes that came as standard on slant-6 A-bodies through
'74 will stop the car (and ONLY the car) quickly enough ONCE. The next
stop in succession will be adequate if you're prepared to make sure the
steering wheel stays pointed straight ahead. The next stop will pucker
you up. And the one after that will not happen. All of this assumes
speeds of around 65ish. More than that, or any appreciable weight
increase, and you're in deep doo-doo.
The 9ers were adequate for the car they were designed to stop, the 1960
Valiant. That car weighed about 2300 pounds and had a 106.5" wheelbase.
The '63s grew substantially heavier, the '67s grew heavier still, the '71s
added yet more weight, and the '73s grew yet heavier still.
The brakes in question are marginally adequate in today's traffic in an
unloaded '72 Dart. They are a "plan ahead!" handful with a full passenger
load, and suicidal with a trailer, even one with brakes.
DS
D-Day
would be a good idea in an case, towing or not. As I said, I haven't towed
too much with domestic vehicles (versus wild ones? No, an occasional
tractor trailer on short runs years ago) but have wondered just how good
trailer electric brakes are. I've known some yahoos claim, while towing big
things with small cars, that the trailer brakes stopped more than the
trailer so they didn't worry. hmmmmmm.....
One quick towing story: Several years ago I would help a boat racing friend
by towing one of his tunnel boats to local races. Very light to pull. If
you don't know a tunnel boat, it's kind of like a hydroplane except it rides
completely on the transom instead of transom/sponson like the big guys. The
air is trapped between the sponsons (tunnel) lifting the boat off the water.
Anyway, I'd towed his a few times with an old station wagon, but this time I
wanted to show off the new paint on my '67 El Camino. I guess the chopped
nature of the back of the El Camino really changed the wind dynamics behind
the car, because at about 70mph I looked in my rearview mirror the 'tunnel'
had obviously filled with air and the darn thing was floating nicely along
about a foot off the trailer. Only a bow line to the winch held it in
place. Leave it to my risk-taking friend to forget the rear tie-downs as he
carefully supervised the loading. Still, I should of checked, I thought
over and over, as I prayed I wouldn't come to a curve before I could slow
enough for the boat to land again.
--
Remove .NOSPAM to Reply
Daniel J. Stern <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.01090...@blue.engin.umich.edu...
E.W. Lambeth
upgrade the brakes & suspension to a point where I could tow 3800 lbs...
and even with all the mods, then I'd have at best a marginal tow vehicle
which is no longer stock and which I wouldn't want to take over 65mph, and
I might not make it up the Rockies with the slant-6 anyway.
I know, you said the upgrade was not prohibitively expensive for a
do-it-yourselfer, and I do appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have a
feeling your definition of not expensive may not match mine... replacing
the axle is pretty labor intensive surgery, and I don't have the knowledge
or tools to do it, so I'd be paying a mecahnic $40/hour to do this, at
least.
Oh well, it was a nice idea, anyway. Thanks for all the comments and
input.
I'd still like to know what the rated towing capacity is so I can figger out
if I can haul a jet ski with it at least. My Jeep Wrangler, if equipped
with a towing package, will pull 2000 lbs according to the instruction
manual, and it's MUCH lighter, MUCH tipsier (high center of gravity,) and
has a MUCH shorter wheelbase than the Dodge, so I figured I could tow at
least that much with the Dart. I hadn't thought about the brakes, radiator,
and axle, though. I live in Southeast Texas, where most towing would be
flat... but it is hotter than hell here in the summer, so the radiator
would be a point of concern.
For that matter, I'd like to acquire an original owners manual so I can
look up this kind of stuff myself. Anybody have one for sale?
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:3B966954...@spam.thanks...
George Conklin
Bob Meyer <robert...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"E.L. Lambert" wrote:
>>
>> I just inherited a 1972 Dodge Dart Swinger slant-6 automatic.
>> jeep weight is about 2800 lbs. I don't have a trailer or tow dolly
>> yet, so I don't know the additional weigght that will add, but I'm
>> guessing the trailer will add no more than an additional 1000 lbs.
>
>69 valiant 225 cu in slant 6 automatic. it was ok on the flats, but
>braking was marginal at best. i wouldn't do it if you want to try to
>preserve the car. rent a truck for your trip.
>
>bob
I towed my first trailer with the 225 engine and a manual
transmission. It was a British-made Sprite, designed to be
towed with a small 4-cylinder car.
Guess what. The engine was so terribly weak that even
with a manual transmission, I was unable to keep up with the
generic 18 wheeler. And the steering was so strange you
thought the trailer was running the car. I later towed
with a AMC Pacer and it was a marvelous car compared to the
Plymouth.
--
# If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. #
# Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm. #
# Support Medicare for All Ages. Urban Myth FAQ under development. #
# Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin, KB4NCI #
Daniel J. Stern
> I towed my first trailer with the 225 engine and a manual
> transmission.
Year and model?
> Guess what. The engine was so terribly weak
More likely, it was a car NOT set up for towing.
DS
Steve Fleckenstein
225 70 Dart, and a 225 74 Dart.
The 70 Dart had alot more power than the 74 Dart. I think it was because of
changes made to meet smog laws. So some of you might remember adequate
power. Others may remember whimpy hp. All of us remember rust.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may be used for commericial purposes as part of a compilation
on any type of media or as part of a collection of e-mail addresses for mass
marketing ONLY
if a $50 or more donation is made to the
Minisink Valley High School Band, P.O. Box 217, Route 6, Slate Hill, NY
10973
http://www.minisink.com
"George Conklin" <jep...@shell.ntrnet.net> wrote in message
news:9n72br$ve0$1...@shell.ntrnet.net...
Chris Herrington
tow a Jetski with it??? Yes...they don't weigh that much.
I used to tow a tent trailer with my 73 Satellite 4 dr....it has a 318, auto,
and disk brakes. Took it to the mountians in NY and PA states several
times....and if you are going to do ANY long distance while towing.....or hilly
terrain.....GET A TRANNY COOLER....you'll thank me in the long run :) It won't
take long to burn out a trans while towing if it over heats..
Other than that...enjoy the car :)
Happy Moparing
Chris
"E.W. Lambeth" wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Art Begun
"D-Day" <dm...@compuserve.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:9n6pod$2rn$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
Art Begun
graduated college and they bought a 75. What junk. My
father made a big mistake and gave his money before starting
the new car. It could barely start. What a rip. The 73
was a valiant 4 door. That was actually the nicest of the
bunch. The Swingers were all wind noise.
By the way, will someone please tell me what made those the
good old days. Detroit was selling us junk and we were
buying it.
"Steve Fleckenstein" <spf...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:YOIl7.737$5u1....@news-west.eli.net...
Art Begun
Steve
D-Day wrote:
> Daniel and Steve, wouldn't the braking situation be helped somewhat if the
> trailer was equipped with electric brakes? He might find this option on a
> used trailer for less than completely upgrading the car brakes.
>
> Just a thought. I've never towed anything that long distance so am just
> wondering aloud.
To a point, but my issue is with the 9" brakes themselves, towing or not
towing. They're undersized for a go-kart. As I said, keeping 9" drums on the
A-body was one of Chrysler's very few engineering mis-steps.
Steve
Art Begun wrote:
> By the way, will someone please tell me what made those the
> good old days.
Extremely well-built, even better-engineered cars. Made with little to
no plastic, and made to be servicable indefinitely into the future,
rather than made to expire after 5 years.
> Detroit was selling us junk and we were
> buying it.
The first piece of what I would call "junk" that I saw come out of
Detroit (other than the Pinto and Vega- they're a class by themselves)
did so in about 1975. Before that, all junk had to be imported.
Al
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
Yeah, right... Back then, we danced for joy if our tires got 18,000 miles
on them wearing out (if they didn't blow out first). Engines had to be
tuned up every 10,000-12,000 miles. Batteries only lasted 2-1/2 years.
Pollution from the engine and fuel system was 100x what today's cars emit.
The bodies always rusted through before they were 4 years old. You could
never get your front end / steering aligned properly, let alone keep it
aligned. Not to mention the loud interior noise, poor ergonomics, shitty
handling, fading brakes, dim headlights, crappy-sounding AM radios that were
a $400 option, and engines and transmissions only lasting to 80,000 miles,
but leaking oil before 20,000 miles.
You can go back to the "good ol' days" if you want. Me-- I'm very happy
with the improvements to today's cars.
Al
Daniel J. Stern
> Yeah, right... Back then, we danced for joy if our tires got 18,000 miles
> on them wearing out (if they didn't blow out first).
Technology "back then" was "back then". Today's tires last a lot longer,
perform better in every way, and are far more resistant to
puncture...whether they're on an old car or a new one.
> Engines had to be
> tuned up every 10,000-12,000 miles.
Technology "back then" was "back then". Today's unleaded gasoline creates
far less gunk in the combustion chamber and on the spark plugs; today's
spark plugs and spark plug wires, today's filters, and -- for those who
oddly choose not to spend 45 minutes installing today's electronic
ignition -- today's breaker points last a lot longer, perform better in
every way...whether they're on an old car or a new one.
> Batteries only lasted 2-1/2 years.
Technology "back then" was "back then". Today's batteries last a lot
longer and perform better in every way...whether they're on an old car or
a new one.
> Pollution from the engine and fuel system was 100x what today's cars emit.
Emissions *limits* were far higher than they are today. This does not
mean that each car at that time emitted the maximum permissible levels.
Even so, pollution from motor vehicles just wasn't the concern it is
today. Bitching about "dirty old cars back in the day" is about as
appropriate as holding a 23-year-old German responsible for Nazi
atrocities.
> The bodies always rusted through before they were 4 years old.
Please, then, explain the 1962, 1965 and 1971 cars in daily service in my
own fleet. And no, I am NOT in Tucson, I'm somewhere where real, actual
snow hits the roads. I might also add -- go to Detroit and see how many
rust-free 1995 cars you see.
> You could
> never get your front end / steering aligned properly, let alone keep it
> aligned.
Your inability to discern a good mechanic from a bad one is certainly not
the fault of the car.
> Not to mention the loud interior noise,
What were you driving, Subaru 360s? A lot of '60s cars are VERY quiet
inside.
> poor ergonomics
Pshaw. Just because YOU didn't like them does not make them "poor". A
lot of today's control-layout ("ergonomic") trends are truly idiotic.
Stalks that control the turn signals, headlamp beams, cruise control,
windshield wipers, windshield washers and instrument panel illumination
depending upon whether they're squeezed, pushed, pulled, flicked, turned,
lifted or twisted come to mind.
> shitty handling,
See above: Tires
> fading brakes,
Technology "back then" was "back then". Today's brake friction materials
and fluids perform much better in every way...whether they're installed on
an old car or a new one.
> dim headlights
Ask any owner of a '93-'97 Chrysler LH car, '96-'00 Chrysler minivan, just
about any Ford product made since 1984, '98-'00 Subaru, numerous GM
products of the 1980s and 1990s, plenty of Toyota products since 1985,
etc., what they'd give for the headlamp performance of a pair of sealed
beams. I dare you. I *DOUBLE* dare you. Go on, then...ask!
> crappy-sounding AM radios that were a $400 option
Somebody's exaggerating here, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.
> and engines and transmissions only lasting to 80,000 miles,
I cannot *wait* for Steve Lacker to chime in here.
DS
Al
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
Yeah, those were the "good old days"...
Moe Parr
<snip>
> crappy-sounding AM radios that were a $400 option,
<snip>
Option R11 in a 1971 Dart, "Radio--AM" cost $64.10. Source: "Dodge 1971
Car and Equipment Prices".
Or you could order option A04, "Basic Group" which included "AM radio,
variable-speed windshield wipers w/electric washer, remote mirror--left
(chrome), day/night mirror--inside", for the whopping sum of $92.10. ibid.
--
Moe
moe.parr AT maxwedge DOT com http://maxwedge.com
Steve
Al wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, right...
Judging by what you say, I don't think you were even a sentient being "back
then."
> Back then, we danced for joy if our tires got 18,000 miles
> on them wearing out (if they didn't blow out first).
Hmmm. My memory is that good ol' Atlas belted tires would last about 60,000
miles. Traction was awful and they were loud, but I didn't run around changing
tires twice a year "back then" and niether did my parents in the 50s.
> Engines had to be
> tuned up every 10,000-12,000 miles.
Big whoop. It cost $5.00 and took 15 minutes to change the plugs, cap, and
rotor.
> Batteries only lasted 2-1/2 years.
>
> Pollution from the engine and fuel system was 100x what today's cars emit.
Not on today's fuels.
>
> The bodies always rusted through before they were 4 years old.
Suuuuuuuure they did.
> You could
> never get your front end / steering aligned properly, let alone keep it
> aligned. Not to mention the loud interior noise, poor ergonomics, shitty
> handling, fading brakes, dim headlights, crappy-sounding AM radios that were
> a $400 option, and engines and transmissions only lasting to 80,000 miles,
> but leaking oil before 20,000 miles.
>
You're clearly a complete moron. My everyday driven car- to the tune of ~25,000
miles per year, is a 1966 Dodge Polara. My wife's car is a 93 Eagle Vision.
The '66 drives just as well, stays aligned just as well, stops just as well,
and went 240,000 miles on the FACTORY transmission, and (at the moment) has
268,000 miles on its original engine. And its much cheaper to maintain. The
difference in gas mileage about compensates for the cheaper maintenance, and I
really LIKE the 93 too. But you're WAY off in looney land on your assessment of
older cars.
Al
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>
>
> Al wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Yeah, right...
>
> Judging by what you say, I don't think you were even a sentient being
"back
> then."
???
> > Back then, we danced for joy if our tires got 18,000 miles
> > on them wearing out (if they didn't blow out first).
>
> Hmmm. My memory is that good ol' Atlas belted tires would last about
60,000
> miles. Traction was awful and they were loud, but I didn't run around
changing
> tires twice a year "back then" and niether did my parents in the 50s.
I changed tires twice a year because crappy bias ply tires were not worth
shit in the snow. Had to put on the snow tires. I used to buy Western Auto
steel belted or fiberglass belted bias ply tires, and the damn things got
bubbles, tread separations, or blew out. Best mileage: ~20,000
> > Engines had to be
> > tuned up every 10,000-12,000 miles.
>
> Big whoop. It cost $5.00 and took 15 minutes to change the plugs, cap, and
> rotor.
Rotor = $3.00
Cap = $6.00
Plugs = .75 x 8 = 6.00
Air filter = $3.50
Fuel filter = $2.00
PCV valve = $2.00
PCV filter = $1.50
TOTAL Parts = ~$24.00
Labor $15 hr x 1.5= $22.50
TOTAL B4 Tax = $46.50
Tune-up every year in October / November before it got real cold and the car
leaves you stranded. Sooner than that if the constant stalling at idle gets
to you.
>
> > Batteries only lasted 2-1/2 years.
At least they were only $29.00 for a good 4-year battery.
>
> >
> > Pollution from the engine and fuel system was 100x what today's cars
emit.
>
> Not on today's fuels.
"A '65 Ford polluted more parked and not running than today's Ford
aurus" --Regional training director, Ford Motor Company
> >
> > The bodies always rusted through before they were 4 years old.
>
> Suuuuuuuure they did.
At least all Ford Country Squire Station wagons, Pintos, Chevy Pickups did,
as well as all cars in the snow/salt belt.
> > You could
> > never get your front end / steering aligned properly, let alone keep it
> > aligned. Not to mention the loud interior noise, poor ergonomics,
shitty
> > handling, fading brakes, dim headlights, crappy-sounding AM radios that
were
> > a $400 option, and engines and transmissions only lasting to 80,000
miles,
> > but leaking oil before 20,000 miles.
> >
>
> You're clearly a complete moron. My everyday driven car- to the tune of
~25,000
> miles per year, is a 1966 Dodge Polara. My wife's car is a 93 Eagle
Vision.
> The '66 drives just as well, stays aligned just as well, stops just as
well,
> and went 240,000 miles on the FACTORY transmission, and (at the moment)
has
> 268,000 miles on its original engine. And its much cheaper to maintain.
The
> difference in gas mileage about compensates for the cheaper maintenance,
and I
> really LIKE the 93 too. But you're WAY off in looney land on your
assessment of
> older cars.
Good for you! I'm glad you are having better experience than I did with my
'67 Chevy Impala, which also received faithful maintenance from the Chevy
dealer. My experience was quite a bit different than yours.
I'd hardly call a '93 vehicle a "new" one. You should try driving a '02.
The improvements will blow you away.
I didn't even mention the improvements made in safety for the new cars...
Keep driving your old clunkers. I'm glad you like them-- I'm sure you are
saving some money.
Al
Daniel J. Stern
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote
> > > Yeah, right...
> >
> > Judging by what you say, I don't think you were even a sentient being
> > "back then."
>
> ???
Which part don't you understand? Try sounding-out the hard words.
> I changed tires twice a year because crappy bias ply tires were not worth
> shit in the snow. Had to put on the snow tires. I used to buy Western Auto
> steel belted or fiberglass belted bias ply tires, and the damn things got
> bubbles, tread separations, or blew out.
Serves you right for buying no-name tires.
> Tune-up every year in October / November before it got real cold and the car
> leaves you stranded. Sooner than that if the constant stalling at idle gets
> to you.
Serves you right for being incompetent, either at tuning up a car or
selecting someone to do it for you.
> At least all Ford Country Squire Station wagons, Pintos, Chevy Pickups did,
> as well as all cars in the snow/salt belt.
All cars in the snow/salt belt STILL rust quickly. There's not much that
can be done about it...cars rust -- even the pieces made out of
noncorroding materials, as it seems! -- up there.
> Good for you! I'm glad you are having better experience than I did with my
> '67 Chevy Impala,
Serves you right for buying a Chevrolet.
> I'd hardly call a '93 vehicle a "new" one.
It's new enough to be reasonably current. In fact, it is right smack at
the average age of the current on-road fleet.
Look, if you prefer new cars, fine! Great! But trying to pass-off your
opinions and preferences as fact just doesn't cut the mustard.
DS
Moe Parr
> I used to buy Western
> Auto steel belted or fiberglass belted bias ply tires, and the damn things
> got bubbles, tread separations, or blew out. Best mileage: ~20,000
And you kept buying them? I got 40,000 out of my first set of new bias ply
tires.
> Tune-up every year in October / November before it got real cold and the
> car leaves you stranded. Sooner than that if the constant stalling at
> idle gets to you.
Perhaps you put 30,000 miles on your cars annually. Other than that, I'd
say you needed a better mechanic.
> "A '65 Ford polluted more parked and not running than today's Ford
> aurus" --Regional training director, Ford Motor Company
A completely fallacious assertion from a completely ambiguous source. It
really has no bearing on the facts.
>> > The bodies always rusted through before they were 4 years old.
>>
>> Suuuuuuuure they did.
>
>> At least all Ford Country Squire Station wagons, Pintos, Chevy Pickups
>> did, as well as all cars in the snow/salt belt.
Well, Pintos never lasted long enough to rust, but Chevy pickups? Look in
any parking lot in the country and I'll bet there is a better than 50/50
chance that an old Chevy pickup is parked there. Or a Ford pickup. Or a
Dodge pickup. Why? The owner takes care of it and it was built to last.
I know you are "Mr. Typical Detroit Quality", but I ask you; when was the
last time you saw a 1970 Toyota or Honda? They sold hundreds of thousands
of them. Where are they? I can look out my window right now and see a
1970 Plymouth Duster, a 1970 Plymouth GTX and a 1970 Super Bee. Every
single day of the week I see Darts, Valiants, Mustangs, and on and on. How
can this be? Why weren't these cars "rusted through before they were 4
years old"? How can this be if they are all junk?
Ever try to fix a VCR? It can't easily be done. It's called 'planned
obsolecence'. Japanese car makers have employed this for years. Try to
buy a major engine component for a 1982 Mazda GLC. The parts are no longer
available, except in junkyards. They weren't available in 1992 when my '82
GLC went Tango Uniform. Planned obsolecence. Junk it and buy a new one,
just like your VCR. On the other hand, I can buy a brand new engine or
transmission, complete and ready to install, for any one of my Mopars.
They're not cheap, but they are a heck of a lot cheaper than a Honda Accord.
> You could never get your front end / steering aligned properly, let alone
> keep it aligned.
No, YOU could never get your front end / steering aligned properly, let
alone keep it aligned. I have never had that problem.
> Not to mention the loud interior noise,
Ever driven a restored Charger? Ever heard the word 'Imperial'?
> shitty handling, fading brakes
Funny, the slolom race at Mopars At Thunder Mountain is regularly won by a
'69 Charger. Racing against Neons and Vipers. My 'Bee handles very well
on the highway, including high-speed flyovers. The Duster handles even
better. That good old torsion bar suspension keeps body roll to a minimum,
which is more than I can say about the rental cars I drive on my many trips.
> Good for you! I'm glad you are having better experience than I did with
> my '67 Chevy Impala, which also received faithful maintenance from the
> Chevy dealer. My experience was quite a bit different than yours.
Well, now you're changing the whole tone of your previous posts. You've
gone from a broad generalization to a specific anecdotal event. Which is
it?
> I'd hardly call a '93 vehicle a "new" one. You should try driving a '02.
> The improvements will blow you away.
I enjoy driving my '00 Cherokee. It's a great vehicle. But I love to
drive my old Mopars even more. As I said above, I drive rentals all the
time. All different makes and models. Most of them are just boring. I
have no need for electric butt warmers, electric mirrors, 4 cup holders and
the like. I'll take a solidly built 300+ HP Mopar any day.
> I didn't even mention the improvements made in safety for the new cars...
I keep a spatula in the glove-box to scrape Toyotas off my Dodge. You can
safely assert that a new subcompact is safer than an old subcompact. But
you cannot assert that a new sucompact is safer than an old full/mid size
car. There are too many variables, not the least of which is two tons of
18 guage steel.
> Keep driving your old clunkers. I'm glad you like them-- I'm sure you are
> saving some money.
We will. We do. We are. We are also having fun while you bemoan our
clunkers, which I suspect is your whole problem. Have fun with your next
$20,000 disposable car.
D. E. Smith
to improve the poor illumination?
Dennis
(NOSPAM leaves to get legit addy)
Al
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > I'd hardly call a '93 vehicle a "new" one.
>
> It's new enough to be reasonably current. In fact, it is right smack at
> the average age of the current on-road fleet.
"average age" = new???
Steve
Al wrote:
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:3B9973B6...@spam.thanks...
> >
> >
> > Al wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, right...
> >
> > Judging by what you say, I don't think you were even a sentient being
> "back
> > then."
>
> ???
>
> > > Back then, we danced for joy if our tires got 18,000 miles
> > > on them wearing out (if they didn't blow out first).
> >
> > Hmmm. My memory is that good ol' Atlas belted tires would last about
> 60,000
> > miles. Traction was awful and they were loud, but I didn't run around
> changing
> > tires twice a year "back then" and niether did my parents in the 50s.
>
> I changed tires twice a year because crappy bias ply tires were not worth
> shit in the snow. Had to put on the snow tires. I used to buy Western Auto
> steel belted or fiberglass belted bias ply tires, and the damn things got
> bubbles, tread separations, or blew out. Best mileage: ~20,000
Shoulda bought decent tires, and people TODAY still change from summer to
winter tires in appropriate climates.
Your argument has nothing to do with "back then" vs "now," just with "quality"
vs "junk."
>
>
> > > Engines had to be
> > > tuned up every 10,000-12,000 miles.
> >
> > Big whoop. It cost $5.00 and took 15 minutes to change the plugs, cap, and
> > rotor.
>
> Rotor = $3.00
> Cap = $6.00
> Plugs = .75 x 8 = 6.00
> Air filter = $3.50
> Fuel filter = $2.00
> PCV valve = $2.00
> PCV filter = $1.50
> TOTAL Parts = ~$24.00
> Labor $15 hr x 1.5= $22.50
> TOTAL B4 Tax = $46.50
Yeah, thats a good price for what it costs TODAY in parts (you did get the
labor right for 25 years ago at least).
Of course to really compare "back then" to "now" you need to leave out the air
filter, fuel filter, PCV valve, and PCV filter because modern cars still need
all those things at exactly the same interval as old cars did.
>
> "A '65 Ford polluted more parked and not running than today's Ford
> aurus" --Regional training director, Ford Motor Company
ROTFL! Good marketing BS.
> I'd hardly call a '93 vehicle a "new" one. You should try driving a '02.
> The improvements will blow you away.
I take rougly a dozen business trips per year, and I've driven '02 rentals from
all of the big 3. I see marginal improvements, and a few steps WAAAAYY backward
(lets see just how long those crappy plastic intake manifolds last...)
>
>
> I didn't even mention the improvements made in safety for the new cars...
I'll meet you head-on in my Polara, lets see who walks away....
>
> Keep driving your old clunkers. I'm glad you like them-- I'm sure you are
> saving some money.
Maybe. More likely breaking even. But I have a better looking car, a more
powerful car, and a longer lasting easier to maintain car. If you don't like
it, FINE but at least get your reasoning straight. Its because of your
preference, not because the car is utterly inferior.
Al
"Moe Parr" <nos...@0-0-0-0-0-0.com> wrote in message
news:omjm7.1301$fC2.5...@news.uswest.net...
> We are also having fun while you bemoan our
> clunkers, which I suspect is your whole problem. Have fun with your next
> $20,000 disposable car.
>
> --
> Moe
> moe.parr AT maxwedge DOT com http://maxwedge.com
>
What's with all the hatred from you guys? You don't think automobiles are
better now than they were 30 years ago??? I don't really care what you
drive, but I find it hard to believe that 30 years haven't brought any
improvements...
My experience sure shows me quite a change from the old days.
Have fun fighting your war...
(PLONK)
Moe Parr
> What's with all the hatred from you guys?
Hatred? We're pointing out what we believe to be glaring errors of fact
and reasoning.
> You don't think automobiles are
> better now than they were 30 years ago???
No, not necessarily. There have been technological advances, to be sure.
And many, if not most, of those technologies can be applied to older cars.
> I don't really care what you
> drive, but I find it hard to believe that 30 years haven't brought any
> improvements...
Not unless you consider cup holders to be an improvement. ;-)
> My experience sure shows me quite a change from the old days.
Mine doesn't. Like I said, I like my '00. But I like my '70 just as much,
if not better. 31 years and nearly 200,000 miles later, it still starts
right up.
> Have fun fighting your war...
Why do you consider this a war? I don't understand.
> (PLONK)
I shouldn't wonder...
Steve
Al wrote:
> "Moe Parr" <nos...@0-0-0-0-0-0.com> wrote in message
> news:omjm7.1301$fC2.5...@news.uswest.net...
> > We are also having fun while you bemoan our
> > clunkers, which I suspect is your whole problem. Have fun with your next
> > $20,000 disposable car.
> >
> > --
> > Moe
> > moe.parr AT maxwedge DOT com http://maxwedge.com
> >
>
> What's with all the hatred from you guys? You don't think automobiles are
> better now than they were 30 years ago???
Honestly, I really think that they are somewhat poorer now than 30 years ago.
Oh sure, many things have improved (tires, reliable EFI for better cold
driveability, better aerodynamics etc.) But many many other things have gone
in the toilet (plastic parts that crumble after 10 years and cannot be found
after 15 years, generic styling, high-revving powerplants with very little
torque, automatic transmissions that only last 150k on average and many fail
before 100k, packed engine bays that make repair very costly since so much
disassembly is required, and even base models loaded down with useless
fru-frah that just adds stuff to break down.) For me, the best thing is to
take an old car and maintain it with new tech. My '66 has electronic ignition,
an electronic voltage regulator, E-code headlamps, a much more modern
carburetor than it came with (and lots of guys put their own EFI on old cars-
a project I'll probably take on one of these years), and brakes with modern
lining materials. But it retains the basic, rugged reliability of a car
without *one* piece of structural plastic in the drivetrain, and only about 3
in the interior. Even the airconditioning ductwork is mostly metal.
> I don't really care what you
> drive, but I find it hard to believe that 30 years haven't brought any
> improvements...
Me too. You'd think things would have improved that haven't. Take the "hard
parts" of an engine (block, crank, rods, bearings, rings, pistons). Same
tolerances and (in many cases) materials today as in 1966.
Which is why I find your claim that a 2002 vehicle is "better" than a 1993
doubly laughable. There's been significant, but not earth-shaking, change
between '66 and 2002, but the changes between 93 and 2002 are all but
undetectable. And most of those are backward too- my '93 has a nickel-iron
block and cast aluminum intake manifold on its 3.5L OHC v6, but the 2002
incarnation of the 3.5 has an aluminum block and plastic intake. Thhhpptt!
Real progress, that.
>Have fun fighting your war...
Seems to me you're the one that pounced all over old cars. I own both old and
new, and probably always will have at least one fairly recent car in my little
fleet.
Art Begun
By the way, my Dart was incredibly noisy compared to today's
cars.
"Moe Parr" <nos...@0-0-0-0-0-0.com> wrote in message
news:hndm7.5328$k73.6...@news.uswest.net...
Art Begun
friends who do and they say the cars don't rust out any
more.
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.010908...@crimson.engin.
umich.edu...
Art Begun
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:3B9A9F8E...@spam.thanks...
Moe Parr
> That was a lot of money back then.
$64.10 is approximately $200 in today's dollars. Not quite the $400 in
1972 dollars that was mentioned in the original post.
> By the way, my Dart was incredibly noisy compared to today's
> cars.
Apples and oranges. They don't make Darts anymore. What are you comparing
it to? Darts were compact cars, on the bottom of Chrysler's price list.
~$2,313 base price, or ~$7,000 in today's dollars. Are you comparing that
to a modern low-priced car costing ~$14,000? Was your Dart new? Did your
Dart have rubber floor mats or carpet with insulation?
I've driven Lexi, Accords, Monte Carlos, etc. and I don't find them to be
any quieter than a well-maintained C-body or B-body. A Super Bee with
headers is a different story... :-)
Art Begun
carpet. The main noise was the Swinger's terrible window
seals. My wife and I used to have to shout at each other on
highway trips even when we weren't pissed at each other. My
father kept his 73 4 door Plymouth version forever. It was
a much nicer car then the 2 door hardtop I had. By the way
I had a vinyl roof. Made the rain drops quiet. It had push
button ac control. One day I pushed the button and the
circuit board broke into pieces. I'm not saying that it was
a terrible car but it was pretty primitive compared to
today's automobiles. It had plastic body parts too. The
end pieces were plastic by the taillights as I remember it.
I prefer my 300M.
"Moe Parr" <nos...@0-0-0-0-0-0.com> wrote in message
news:igCn7.2483$RE6.5...@news.uswest.net...
Steve
Art Begun wrote:
> That was a lot of money back then.
Comparable to $10,000 or less in today's dollars. For that, you got a
car that could seat 5 or 6 (depending on front seat configuration),
which would go like a scalded dog if you got even the 318 option (and
could spank your 300M if you got a 340), plus carry luggage for a
family of 4 on a cross-country vacation. Today, you can't get a pathetic
little compact for that kind of money!
>
> By the way, my Dart was incredibly noisy compared to today's
> cars.
>
Again- compared to your 300M (which should be compared to the Imperial
of 1972) or to a Neon? If you had a hardtop, it is true that the rimless
windows didn't seal the greatest (my '66 Polara is a 4-door hardtop with
no "B" pillar and rimless windows) but I'll tolerate a little wind noise
for the added "nifty" factor of a pillarless hardtop. And are you
remembering your Dart new, or as it was when you unloaded it?
Art Begun
when I graduated from college. They had it on Long Island.
After 3 years in Rochester NY with me it was pretty much
rusted out and I sold it.
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:3B9F98D0...@spam.thanks...