Is the end of the rear wheel driven car comming soon?
Gene Slater
brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil wrote:
>
> In article <4gur7p$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J. Remner) writes:
> > In a previous article, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil () says:
> >
> >>
> >>Why? Because it doesn't have swoopy sheet metal or spoilers? Mechanics and
> >>physics do not care about what 'niche' the car is marketed for.
> >>
> >
> > I'm sure suspension design has a lot to do with it.
> > You wouldn't want Joe and Jane Average Tailgater driving a twitchy,
> > quick-handling sports coupe on the way to the mall, would you?
>
> Let us remember that one of the reasons the old Taurus made such a splash is
> that it had a tighter, better controlled suspension than one normally found in
> this market segment.
>
> >
> >
> >> [the Taurus - P.J.]
> >>It's also heavier (according to my information) than the Zephyr it replaced.
> >>
> >>There's nothing inherent in FWD that'll give it a meaningful weight advantage
> >>over RWD. Last I looked, there are a LOT of FWD's hitting 3000 lb or better.
> >>
> >
> > I'm sure it has to do with the reason a 1961 Impala and a 1993 Grand Am
> > both weigh 3700 pounds: new cars have lots of heavy upholstery, computer
> > and wiring harness, airbags, anti-lock brakes, and attendant equipment,
> > power everything, and safety-cage body design. Equally designed and
> > equally optioned, a FWD will weigh less, because the heavy transmission
> > and differential cases are combined into one, as well as the lack of the
> > driveshaft.
>
> If they were optioned comparably - that is, the Grand Am had a 700+ pound V8 in
> it, AND a drivetrain stout enough to handle 300-400 ft-lbs of torque, I doubt
> it would weigh in anywhere near what the old Impala weighed. Also, don't forget
> - the state of mechanical design has advanced somewhat over the last 35 years -
> and a 61 Impala designed to the same general parameters today can weigh less
> than it did then.
>
> If you compare the same engine, the same drivetrain capacity, and the same
> bodyshell I doubt you'll find front drive saving more than 50-100 lbs, if that
> much.
interesting conversation going on here, true fwd is somewhat lighter,
but most importantly of all its cheaper to mfgr, in the long run,
slightly more fuel effecient, however the poor bastards who have to fix
them, hate them, any mechanic would fix 2-3 rwd's over 1 fwd, those
underhood compartments are a disaster, cant even shange a plug,, the
reliability is lousy too, ever see smoking vw's, civics, accords, etc.
the smaller the engines, the less realiable, jd power/assoc. doesnt give
a damn, they only serve the first owners and mfgrs. Hell any car with
any warranty left is probably going to be ok, if its taken care of,
BUT HERE IS THE RUB, THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH OWNERS ARE SCREWED.....
THE COST OF REPAIRS FAR EXCEEDS THE DECLINING GAS MILEAGE SAVINGS, THE
RUST ( UNLESS YOUR IN ARIZONA, ETC.) WILL DISOLVE THE CAR AT A MUCH
QUICKER RATE, AND ITS STRUCTURAL TOO, JACK UP THE ANTENNA AND PUT A NEW
CAR UNDER IT!!!!!!!
for me, no thanks, all most all modern cars are junk, cant be fixed
economically, and dont have a chassis..
ever try to get any body part for a jap mobile beyond the age of 5 yrs?
its junkyard and pray, and for every instance i hear about much touted
reliability, i can show you a person who never really drives the car,
has extremely low mileage accumulated.....
Aardwolf
Gene Slater wrote:
> > > I'm sure it has to do with the reason a 1961 Impala and a 1993 Grand Am
> > > both weigh 3700 pounds:
News flash--1993 Grand Ams are about 1000lbs lighter than that, they
run about 2850 or so as I recall.
Aardwolf.
dand...@digex.net
The '96 Gran Am SE is 2935. However, a Grand Prix is 3500.
I can't find a source, but I'm sure the '61 Impala didn't weight 3700 pounds, either.
But, the point is very valid. My Tempest is about 3000 pounds, but is the same
size as a Mark VIII, which weights 3750.
----Steve
Stephen Amadei
Director of MIS
Dandy Connections, Inc.
Atlantic City, NJ
Dennis Smith
According to my sources, Collectable Automobile for the '61 and the GM web
site for the '97, the numbers are:
'61 Impala SS 2dr weighs 3700 lb.
'97 Grand Am SE weighs 2882 lb.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
>
> In <3238F5...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
> >Gene Slater wrote:
> >> > > I'm sure it has to do with the reason a 1961 Impala and a 1993 Grand Am
> >> > > both weigh 3700 pounds:
> >
> >News flash--1993 Grand Ams are about 1000lbs lighter than that, they
> >run about 2850 or so as I recall.
>
> The '96 Gran Am SE is 2935. However, a Grand Prix is 3500.
>
> I can't find a source, but I'm sure the '61 Impala didn't weight 3700 pounds, either.
> But, the point is very valid. My Tempest is about 3000 pounds, but is the same
> size as a Mark VIII, which weights 3750.
Nope, you're right, the Impala weighed 3600lbs.
But the increase in weight is due to all sorts of standard equipment not
availble back then. Put in a bunch of equivalent options on an Impala and
I'm sure you'd see it easilly hit 4000bs.
Aardwolf.
dand...@digex.net
You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
was over 4500 lbs.
John Weir
: dand...@digex.net wrote:
: > I can't find a source, but I'm sure the '61 Impala didn't weight 3700 pounds, either.
: > But, the point is very valid. My Tempest is about 3000 pounds, but is the same
: > size as a Mark VIII, which weights 3750.
This seems very light for a Tempest.
I would have guessed that they were between 3500 & 4000 lbs.
John
Clarence Snyder
Gene Slater <mrv...@idsonline.com> wrote:
>brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil wrote:
>>
>> In article <4gur7p$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J. Remner) writes:
>> > In a previous article, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil () says:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Why? Because it doesn't have swoopy sheet metal or spoilers? Mechanics and
>> >>physics do not care about what 'niche' the car is marketed for.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm sure suspension design has a lot to do with it.
>> > You wouldn't want Joe and Jane Average Tailgater driving a twitchy,
>> > quick-handling sports coupe on the way to the mall, would you?
>>
>> Let us remember that one of the reasons the old Taurus made such a splash is
>> that it had a tighter, better controlled suspension than one normally found in
>> this market segment.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> [the Taurus - P.J.]
>> >>It's also heavier (according to my information) than the Zephyr it replaced.
>> >>
>> >>There's nothing inherent in FWD that'll give it a meaningful weight advantage
>> >>over RWD. Last I looked, there are a LOT of FWD's hitting 3000 lb or better.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm sure it has to do with the reason a 1961 Impala and a 1993 Grand Am
A lot of Half truths here. Front-wheel drive vs rear wheel drive has
nothing to do with the engine. A good case in point was the rear wheel
Chevy Vega - the worst engine EVER to be produced in america, and
worse than ANYTHING Japan has ever sent to our shores.
The 1.5 Litre Toyota Tercel (2A engine)of the early eighties was good
for over 300,000 miles of hard miles. I'm talking courier service. The
1.6 litre corolla, and even more so the 1.8 litre, from 1977 to 1982
(2T and 3T) were quite possibly the most reliable engine after the
small-block chevy and early chrysler slant six. These cars were built
to be driven, and I serviced hundreds of them for 10 years, vertually
NO major engine component failures on vehicles I serviced. The 22R
motor was also a fantastic engine. The 18r was a little less robust,
but now we're talking 1972 -73.
A well designed, properly serviced 4 is still a very reliable engine.
The fuel savings are not always there, however, as they often have to
work harder.
As far as front wheel drive is concerned, I've driven both front and
rear since my 1961 Austin Mini. That care had no reliability to speak
of, but had 216,000 miles on it when I sold it - not scrapped it. It
was the most fun-to drive car I have ever owned, and I learned the
mechanic's trade keeping the little beggar running.
I also rallied a 1972 Renault R12 for 3 years. We never broke it on a
rally, and it had about 100,000 miles on it before we started - just a
rering and bearing job to start out and we were competitive for 3
years. This was a front drive vehicle with the engine in the RIGHT
WAY, as was the Tercel. I sold my 1981 Tercel with over 300,000K on
the clock, and the last time I saw it it had almost 400,000.
Mechanically I had replaced the timing chain, clutch, and front CV
joints - once each.
The 72 Peugot 204 wagon I once owned I would rather forget. It had had
a hard life before I got it, and it never recovered. (Central Africa
didn't do it much good either.)
The american front drive cars are not quite as good, in my experience.
The GM X car (how can a car that never was a car be an EX CAR?) was
junk. But remember, so was the VEGA. The T series (Chevette) was a
decent car, although GM should have put dual exhaust on them - it's
hard to push a wheelbarrow with only one handle!!
The Omnis and VW rabbits of the early years were nothing to write home
about either, and nor was the K car (Aries Reliant 600, etc.) However,
keep in mind the Volarie and aspen of the same rough time period -
they were no gem either.
Enough about the quality or lack there-of and the total lack of any
reason to believe it relates to front wheel drive.
A transverse engive system, whether front or rear drive, is inherently
nore efficient due to the fact that rotation does not have to change
through a right angle. Hypoid or bevel gear diffs have a lot of
friction. The inline engined front drive and rear-engine rear-drive
cars do not have this advantage.
The lack of a driveshaft and rear axle housing on front drive cars has
several advantages. weight is but one. ( independent rear suspension
on a rear-drive has some weight adfvantage too)
The lack of a floor hump gives more interior room, and a lower body
sillouette, allowing better aerdynamics. Also, the body can be much
lighter as it is not a torque reaction member in the drive train.
The cocept of Engine Over Drive gives superior traction, whether front
or rear mounted. Front drive keeps the polar lmoment of inertia over
the steering axle, providing superior handling - after you learn how
to drive all over again. At least mounted out front you will not spin
out due to too much power - just don't lift your foot too fast on a
slippery turn!!
As far as serviceability is concerned, yes, I'd rather fix 3 RWD
vehicles than one FWD - unless the RWD is a Chevy AstroVan or a Ford
AeroScare. Even they are not too bad, compared to changing plugs on ,
for instance a 440 wedge in a Chrysler Imperial, or a 428 CJ mustang
from the sixties. How about changing spark plugs on a V8 MONZA, or a
BUICK SKYHAWK of the 70's? Been there - Done that
As far as body strength - rust etc is concerned, why are there no 58
Dodges left? How about 71 Torinos? Even early 70's F100 p"ups (before
the days of galvanized front inner fenders) Sure, early Toyotas and
Rabbits rusted away (not as bad as a FIAT, but still bad). So did
Ford Maveriks, and comets, and Falcons. I seem to remember something
about the rear springs poking the trunk lid of a certain Valiant too.
It's not just our vision that deteriorates with age . We have
selective memory - and nothing can ever be as good as the old buick /
pontiac / Mustang / Model A , or Hupmobile we had when we were young.
I've had a 28 chev, a 35 chev, a 37 Terraplane, 53 Dodge Coronet, 57
Fargo, 61 Mini, 63 Valiant, 69 dart, 74 Dart, 76 Ramcharger, 66
Rambler Classic, 72 Vauxhaull Firenza (any F"renz'a yours aint no
f'renz'a mine) 1980 corolla, 1981 tercel, 1973 Renault 1949 Beetle,
1972 Peugot 204, 1976 Monarch, 1977 Chevy 11, 1975 Pacer, 1972
Ambassador Wagon, Lebaron T&C ,and a hand-full of others over the
years, and for reliability, I wouldn't trade any of them for todays
cars. I wish I still had half of those honeys though!!!
Anyways - enough rambling - Suffice it to say there is still a place
for the big, rear wheel drive cars. I love 'em when I don't have to
feed them and keep the corners looking good when the little woman has
to drive them. That's why I've got the '90 AeroScare for me to drive
and the FWD 1988 NewYorker Landau for the wife.
Know where I can get a King Midget cheap for the teanaged daughters?
dand...@digex.net
Most V-8 LeMans where around 3400-3600. Mine is a total stripper with a
6. They started around 3100, and mine has 'lost' at least 100 pounds of parts...I,
uh, didn't need anymore. By the time the '72 LeMans'es came out, a fully loaded
Luxury LeMans was over 4000.
Ed Dybdal
dand...@digex.net wrote:
>
> You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
> big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
> 3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
> was over 4500 lbs.
>
Why is that scary? I guess if a S600 is coming at you at 60 MPH and your
in a Honda Civic id imagine your whole life would flash before you.
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>>interesting conversation going on here, true fwd is somewhat lighter,
>>but most importantly of all its cheaper to mfgr, in the long run,
>>slightly more fuel effecient,
Actually the big reason for using FWD as far as weight is concerned is the fact
that they tend to have *much* less rotating mass, which has more effect on the
perf, and econ than just weighing the components on a scale. The RWD car tends
to have a large diameter shaft that uses much more energy to accelerate than a
comparable mass used in the CV shafts (this is a vague description. If you want
to know the details see a physics book concering mass, moment, and inertia)
>>them, hate them, any mechanic would fix 2-3 rwd's over 1 fwd, those
>>underhood compartments are a disaster, cant even shange a plug,,
I have an Explorer....RWD...hell to change plugs also. Have you tried to change
plugs in a RWD Camaro Z-28 lately? The easiest car to change plugs in I have
had was the 89 Colt. Plugs facing the front of the car. Took all of 15 min to
change all 4 (assuming they were pre gapped). But the Explorer takes an average
of 15 min per plug!
>>reliability is lousy too, ever see smoking vw's, civics, accords, etc.
>>the smaller the engines, the less realiable,
This is related to "smaller" engines, not what drive line confiuration it has.
Take a Chevette for example. Small gut-less engine (I know, my wife has one,
ugg), they are generally not considered reliable cars, most are smoking piles
on wheels...but they are RWD!
>> THE
>>RUST ( UNLESS YOUR IN ARIZONA, ETC.) WILL DISOLVE THE CAR AT A MUCH
>>QUICKER RATE, AND ITS STRUCTURAL TOO, JACK UP THE ANTENNA AND PUT A NEW
>>CAR UNDER IT!!!!!!!
Rust? what the hell does rust have to do with whether FWD is better than RWD?
/\ /\/\
/ ^\/^\ /\ //\ \ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Dept of Electrical Engr.
/ \___/^\// \ ^\_______________________________________________________
Paul O'Gorman - | 93 Explorer 4x4 / 86 Cougar GS 5.0
______________________________________|________________________________________
It is too late for the pebbles to vote, as the avelanche has already started.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
>big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
>3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
>was over 4500 lbs.
It is rediculous what some of those things weighs. A Suburban weighs some where
around 5500lbs! No wonder they get such horrible fuel econ. As far as cars from
the 60's go though, take a look at a 69 Buick Electra, they weighed a good 5000
lb!
Redbeard
In article <01bba14a$9817a980$3f501a8a@eedgs2>, dsm...@eng.uab.edu says...
Um, yeah, but you're comparing the full-size GM flagship of '61 with
a mid-sized to compact sized car. Do you have the wieght spec on a
late-model Caprice or Impala SS? My '63 Corvette weighs in at just
over 3050 pounds with a full tank of gas and the hard top on. My
1982 Buick Regal weighs (I'm guessing here) about 3300 lb. However,
the 'Vette is a roadster, so it'll weigh more than an otherwise identical
coupe. On the other hand, most pickups from the '60's weighed between
3800 and 4200 lb. I'd like to find out just how much these newer full-sized
cars are weighing...How much weight have they really been able to shed on
cars in the last 20-30 years?
TTYL!
Jeff Lanthripp
redb...@cdc.net
dand...@digex.net
In <323C85...@earthlink.net>, Ed Dybdal <ed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>dand...@digex.net wrote:
>>
>> You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
>> big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
>> 3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
>> was over 4500 lbs.
>>
>
>in a Honda Civic id imagine your whole life would flash before you.
Scary in that many people driving these things around don't have a clue how
heavy these vehicles are. There are some bridges in my area you cannot legally
drive a S600 over. These folks think that these are 'average', and that old '60s
cars are 'tanks'. My '68 'tank' doesn't come close to the weight of a S600.
BTW, Honda Civic, please! I refuse to help any friends or relatives with their
cars if they buy a little death trap like that. Personnally, I'll continue to
classify my Tempest as a 'compact'. ;-) Just as Detroit considered it when
they started building them.
David Wei
In message <323C85...@earthlink.net> - Ed Dybdal <ed...@earthlink.net>Sun,
15 Sep 1996 18:37:13 -0400 writes:
:>Why is that scary? I guess if a S600 is coming at you at 60 MPH and your
:>in a Honda Civic id imagine your whole life would flash before you.
A pair of Ejection seats please, and no, I don't want airbags, and a
obustruction detector (just incase the thing want to eject when I'm having
trouble in a tunnel... :) )... No airbags because you don't wanna Airbags
blowing out when you are trying to get the hell outta the car... :)
===========================================================
David Wei E-Mail Address: davi...@uvic.ca
davi...@smartt.com
Running under am486DX4-120 with the POWER of OS/2 Warp.
========================Team OS/2=========================
F-22's note to fighters on the "other" side:
You can hide, but you can't run.... :)
===========================================================
John Weir
23C85...@earthlink.net>
Organization: Exec-PC
Distribution:
Ed Dybdal (ed...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: dand...@digex.net wrote:
: >
: > You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
: > big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
: > 3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
: > was over 4500 lbs.
: >
: Why is that scary? I guess if a S600 is coming at you at 60 MPH and your
: in a Honda Civic id imagine your whole life would flash before you.
Duh!
If you have a bloat coming at you like the S600 as you describe,
I don't think it makes any matter what you are sitting in, short
of a tank, which the S600 isn't far from.
Was there a point to your attempt at one?
David J. Spitz
Redb...@no.where.net (Redbeard) wrote:
>Um, yeah, but you're comparing the full-size GM flagship of '61 with
>a mid-sized to compact sized car. Do you have the wieght spec on a
>late-model Caprice or Impala SS? My '63 Corvette weighs in at just
>over 3050 pounds with a full tank of gas and the hard top on. My
>1982 Buick Regal weighs (I'm guessing here) about 3300 lb. However,
>the 'Vette is a roadster, so it'll weigh more than an otherwise identical
>coupe. On the other hand, most pickups from the '60's weighed between
>3800 and 4200 lb. I'd like to find out just how much these newer full-sized
>cars are weighing...How much weight have they really been able to shed on
>cars in the last 20-30 years?
A '95 Impala SS tips the scales at 4,200 pounds, empty.
-david
'95 Impala SS
ralph derickson
(Lots of snipped stuff)
Also, don't forget
> > - the state of mechanical design has advanced somewhat over the last 35 years -
> > and a 61 Impala designed to the same general parameters today can weigh less
> > than it did then.
> >
Surely you jest. This "state of mechanical design" advancement
was done in the board room, not in the engineering studios. In
other words, it wasn't the principle of the thing (or the
advanced engineering), it was the money.
I just took my daughter out of a 1988 Chevy Beretta (sp? fondly known
around our home as the Beretta from hell) and put her in a 1975
Olds Omega coupe I resurrected. This car came out with a 350
Buick V-8 and a reasonably sound chassis with RWD. Why did I do
this? I like my daughter. I'd like to see her drive to survive.
Right, you got it. This IS her father's Oldsmobile.
Wanna talk engineering? Find a good wheel and axle man
you trust and ask him which of the two cars I just named
he'd prefer to work on, own, and drive.
> interesting conversation going on here, true fwd is somewhat lighter,
> but most importantly of all its cheaper to mfgr, in the long run,
> slightly more fuel effecient, however the poor bastards who have to fix
> them, hate them, any mechanic would fix 2-3 rwd's over 1 fwd, those
> underhood compartments are a disaster, cant even shange a plug,, the
> reliability is lousy too, ever see smoking vw's, civics, accords, etc.
> the smaller the engines, the less realiable, jd power/assoc. doesnt give
> a damn, they only serve the first owners and mfgrs. Hell any car with
> any warranty left is probably going to be ok, if its taken care of,
>
> BUT HERE IS THE RUB, THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH OWNERS ARE SCREWED.....
> THE COST OF REPAIRS FAR EXCEEDS THE DECLINING GAS MILEAGE SAVINGS, THE
> RUST ( UNLESS YOUR IN ARIZONA, ETC.) WILL DISOLVE THE CAR AT A MUCH
> QUICKER RATE, AND ITS STRUCTURAL TOO, JACK UP THE ANTENNA AND PUT A NEW
> CAR UNDER IT!!!!!!!
>
Listen to this man. He knows.
> for me, no thanks, all most all modern cars are junk, cant be fixed
> economically, and dont have a chassis..
> ever try to get any body part for a jap mobile beyond the age of 5 yrs?
> its junkyard and pray, and for every instance i hear about much touted
> reliability, i can show you a person who never really drives the car,
> has extremely low mileage accumulated.....
Amen to this, too.
Kentucky (push it, don't pull it) Ralph
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
Weight of a 1976 Catalina is 4700lbs, of a 1976 Grand Marquis is
4900lbs, and of a 1976 Eldorado or Toronado is over 5000 lbs, about the
same as those Mercedes. The new cars would be significantly lighter if not
for allthat extra crap. And yes I agree those are some pretty sorry
weights, and unlike the older cars do not correlate with structural
strength either.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:dand...@digex.net wrote:
> You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
> big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
> 3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
> was over 4500 lbs.
Weight of a 1976 Catalina is 4700lbs, of a 1976 Grand Marquis is
4900lbs, and of a 1976 Eldorado or Toronado is over 5000 lbs, about the
same as those Mercedes. Although those of the '60's were somewhat
lighter. The new cars would be significantly lighter if not for all that
extra crap. And yes I agree those are some pretty sorry weights, and
unlike the older cars do not correlate with structural strength either.
Aardwolf.
dand...@digex.net
In <51hvqi$1...@netra.oscs.montana.edu>, gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
[snip!]
>>> THE
>>>RUST ( UNLESS YOUR IN ARIZONA, ETC.) WILL DISOLVE THE CAR AT A MUCH
>>>QUICKER RATE, AND ITS STRUCTURAL TOO, JACK UP THE ANTENNA AND PUT A NEW
>>>CAR UNDER IT!!!!!!!
>
Well... One advantage of FWD is that after the car rusts out and breaks in half,
at least you can still drive it. ;-) SCCCRRRRRRAPPPPPPPE!!!!
dand...@digex.net
Ah... But these are not cars of the '50s or '60s. I agree that many '70s cars
are heavy as well. These cars have all that sound deadening, options, and
other heavy parts such as the butt warmer/massager. Ironic that the '70s
were years of 'downsizing'.
One plus, though, is that these cars drive like big cars. Many newer cars with
simular weight do not. They weight 4500 lbs, but try to act like 3000 lb
ballerinas...with some success. But when it comes down to it, they are still
very heavy, and the laws of physics do not change.
dand...@digex.net
In <51i03m$1...@netra.oscs.montana.edu>, gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>>You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
>>big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
>>3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
>>was over 4500 lbs.
>
>around 5500lbs! No wonder they get such horrible fuel econ. As far as cars from
>the 60's go though, take a look at a 69 Buick Electra, they weighed a good 5000
>lb!
A '76 Electra maybe, but I doubt a '69. I agree they APPEAR to weight 5000lbs,
but most of that space is empty (in the '69, not the '76...the '76 is full of stuffing).
Can Aardwolf look this up? I just moved, and my favorite car reference is
misplaced.
Paul D Thompson
In article <51iia0$e...@cdc2.cdc.net>, Redb...@no.where.net says...
>
>My '63 Corvette weighs in at just
>over 3050 pounds with a full tank of gas and the hard top on.
>identical coupe.
A 91 Vette Coupe weighs in at 3250. So much for progress.
-Paul
Aardwolf
Redbeard wrote:
> Um, yeah, but you're comparing the full-size GM flagship of '61 with
> a mid-sized to compact sized car. Do you have the wieght spec on a
> cars are weighing...How much weight have they really been able to shed on
> cars in the last 20-30 years?
1961 Impala---3700lbs (V8 sedan, 348cid)
1976 Impala---4500lbs (V8 sedan, 454cid)
1978 Impala---3800lbs (V8 sedan, 350cid)
1994 Impala---4200lbs (V8 sedan, LT1 5.7L/350cid)
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> BTW, Honda Civic, please! I refuse to help any friends or relatives with their
> cars if they buy a little death trap like that. Personnally, I'll continue to
> classify my Tempest as a 'compact'. ;-) Just as Detroit considered it when
> they started building them.
You said it! Why anyone would want to drive a sub-2000lb, tall, gutless
car on the highway is beyond me.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
>
> >You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
> >big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
> >3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
> >was over 4500 lbs.
>
> It is rediculous what some of those things weighs. A Suburban weighs some where
> around 5500lbs! No wonder they get such horrible fuel econ. As far as cars from
> the 60's go though, take a look at a 69 Buick Electra, they weighed a good 5000
> lb!
The '69's got to about 4325. The 1974-76 cars weighed about 4800lbs.
brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil
In article <51kfu0$j...@service3.uky.edu>, ralph derickson <rder...@uklans.uky.edu> writes:
> (Lots of snipped stuff)
>
> Also, don't forget
>> > - the state of mechanical design has advanced somewhat over the last 35 years -
>> > and a 61 Impala designed to the same general parameters today can weigh less
>> > than it did then.
>> >
> Surely you jest. This "state of mechanical design" advancement
> was done in the board room, not in the engineering studios. In
> other words, it wasn't the principle of the thing (or the
> advanced engineering), it was the money.
Don't be an idiot. Composite technology that can be used to
make various misc. body/engine parts did not exist 35 years ago. The computer
aided analysis that helps an engineer optimize chassis stiffness/weight/safety
did not exist 35 years ago.
Metalurgy has also improved over the past 35 years, even for simple steels -
allowing comparable strength with a little less metal.
> I just took my daughter out of a 1988 Chevy Beretta (sp? fondly known
> around our home as the Beretta from hell) and put her in a 1975
> Olds Omega coupe I resurrected. This car came out with a 350
> Buick V-8 and a reasonably sound chassis with RWD. Why did I do
> this? I like my daughter. I'd like to see her drive to survive.
> Right, you got it. This IS her father's Oldsmobile.
From your above comments, I doubt you know what constitutes a reasonable sound
chassis - especially when it comes to impact surviveability. Did you actually
try to verify your impression that the Omega is really a safer car, or did you
just assume that it is because it has more metal? Both cars are popular enough
that there is sufficient crash data accumulated to make a comparison. If you
did do the research - kudos to you for taking the time to make an informed
decision. If you didn't - you are possible doing a disservice to your family
and possibly putting your daughter at greater risk.
>
> Wanna talk engineering? Find a good wheel and axle man
> you trust and ask him which of the two cars I just named
> he'd prefer to work on, own, and drive.
Got nothing to do with chassis design, impact surviveability, safety, etc.
And yes, I've gone through the agony of trying to replace an engine in an early
GM X car... as well as VW, Audi, Ford, Yugo, Fiat, tansvers engine/front drive
cars (along with various rear drivers). The hardest? The X car. The second
hardest? A mid 70's Suburban (and THAT one was done in a shop with access to a
lift and pneumatic tools).
>
>
>> BUT HERE IS THE RUB, THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH OWNERS ARE SCREWED.....
>> THE COST OF REPAIRS FAR EXCEEDS THE DECLINING GAS MILEAGE SAVINGS, THE
>> RUST ( UNLESS YOUR IN ARIZONA, ETC.) WILL DISOLVE THE CAR AT A MUCH
>> QUICKER RATE, AND ITS STRUCTURAL TOO, JACK UP THE ANTENNA AND PUT A NEW
>> CAR UNDER IT!!!!!!!
>>
> Listen to this man. He knows.
He knows squat. I've had a number of front drive/unit body cars second and
third hand - and I live in the northeast (with its proliferation of winter
salt). I'll put up the corrosion resistance of a mid 80's Taurus (that my wife
drives), Mustang (that I drive), or almost any other domestic against a
domestic from pre '78. They're better, period. My wife's Taurus wagon after 9
years has about 1/20th the rust my Dad's'74 Torino did at 2 years - and HIS
experience was not uncommon.
>
>> for me, no thanks, all most all modern cars are junk, cant be fixed
>> economically, and dont have a chassis..
Uh-huh. Right. I guess if it can't be fixed with an 8 lb sledge, it can't be
fixed economically.
Yes they can be fixed economically. Do it all the time. As for having a
chassis, they do - it's called a unit body. Unit bodies have been around for
decades - including some rather heavy land barges of ages past. A friend's 59
T-Bird comes to mind.... but I guess that 4000+ lb behemoth didn't have a
chassis either.
>> ever try to get any body part for a jap mobile beyond the age of 5 yrs?
>> its junkyard and pray, and for every instance i hear about much touted
>> reliability, i can show you a person who never really drives the car,
>> has extremely low mileage accumulated.....
Body parts for Jap cars? No problem. Try looking....
>
> Amen to this, too.
Own and drive what you want.... but why spread stories around about stuff you
don't know anything about?
Dennis Smith
> The same thing with my 3 RWD Chevy II Novas. They were advertised and
> sold as compact economy cars...
That was back when the manufacturers got to decide what category their cars
fell into. Today, the DOT decides on the car's classification based on
interior volume. So, who do you trust, GM or Big Brother?
David Wei
In message <3240DF...@itis.com> - Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
:>> BTW, Honda Civic, please! I refuse to help any friends or relatives with their
:>> cars if they buy a little death trap like that. Personnally, I'll continue to
:>
:>You said it! Why anyone would want to drive a sub-2000lb, tall, gutless
:>car on the highway is beyond me.
I have a friend who flip the thing on the highway because he thinks he is
driving a supercar... (ie: snap the steering wheel to the very left to change
lane, and then snap back....) I guess the only 2000 pounder I might WANT to
drive is the Awesome McLaren F-1 or the snappy Gillet Vertigo. But currently
the $$$ is in short supply, VERY SHORT supply.....
Young Song
In article <51stgs$9...@ktk2.smartt.com>, davi...@uvic.ca (David Wei) wrote:
=In message <3240DF...@itis.com> - Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
=
=:>> BTW, Honda Civic, please! I refuse to help any friends or relatives with
= their
=:>> cars if they buy a little death trap like that. Personnally, I'll continue
= to
=:>
=:>You said it! Why anyone would want to drive a sub-2000lb, tall, gutless
=:>car on the highway is beyond me.
=
=I have a friend who flip the thing on the highway because he thinks he is
=driving a supercar... (ie: snap the steering wheel to the very left to change
=lane, and then snap back....) I guess the only 2000 pounder I might WANT to
=drive is the Awesome McLaren F-1 or the snappy Gillet Vertigo. But currently
=the $$$ is in short supply, VERY SHORT supply.....
Granted the Civic ain't no Porsche 911, but some of these kids out there can
trick them up pretty good. I saw some pretty fast Civics pull quarter miles in
the 12 second range. Fastest one out is a CRX with a quarter mile of 10.81
sec. That ain't so bad for a tiny little four banger...
Actually, the Civic is pretty stable - it doesn't have such a narrow
wheelbase. It's generally wider than other "compact" cars in the same class.
Me, a happy Chevy Caprice Estate (THE big wagon) owner AND a Civic Hatchback
(supercharged and modified to push 200 hp)
dand...@digex.net
In <51rjob$2...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>, Lawrence Artz <ar...@ll.mit.edu> writes:
[snip!]
>The same thing with my 3 RWD Chevy II Novas. They were advertised and
>Nova wagons is 8 passenger) cars weighing in at around 2700lbs. Even an
>insurance company I had a few years ago applied the "economy car
>discount" to my 66 Nova. I sure don't consider them mid-size, as I refer
>to the Chevelle as a "mid-size" car, and the Impala as the "full-size".
>Nowadays they call a Ford Taurus a full-size car even though it is no
>bigger than my Chevy II (at least Hertz rental calls it that). Of course,
>6 passengers and luggage in a Taurus, the car is freighted down to the
>bottom of the suspension stops (with kind of a squished seating feeling
>inside).
The class of '61 Tempest/F-85/Special and Corvairs were considered compacts,
but by '66 the Tempest/F-85/Special had bulked up to intermediate size. The
Chevy II/Nova was bulked up to intermediate in '68. You ever notice how most
small cars grow year after year? Especially Japanese cars.
Because I am of full-size variety myself, I consider the A-bodies to be right
on the border between compact and intermediate. I consider anything smaller
than a Camaro/Chevy II/Nova to be non-existent.
Those early Chevy II were well thought out cars. Simple, compact, with enough
room for a good engine and interior. Makes me wonder why Detriot got this
first attempt at a compact car right, but screwed up on every attempt until
recently... Vega, Pinto, Monza, Chevette, 80's J-cars...
Well, Vegas weren't too bad. Just bad engines. I sorta liked Grumpy's Toy.
John Weir
<51jit8$5...@newsops.execpc.com><4erh5d$1c...@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <4gur7p$l...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1996Feb29.073238.2400@condor> <323751...@idsonline.com> <3238F5...@itis.com> <51aucf$u...@news3.digex.net> <323A09...@itis.com> <51d8k1$8in
@news3.digex.net> <3 <51jit8$5...@newsops.execpc.com>
<3240DF...@itis.com> <51stgs$9...@ktk2.smartt.com>
Organization: Exec-PC
Distribution:
David Wei (davi...@uvic.ca) wrote:
: In message <3240DF...@itis.com> - Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
: :>> BTW, Honda Civic, please! I refuse to help any friends or relatives with their
: :>> cars if they buy a little death trap like that. Personnally, I'll continue to
: :>
: :>You said it! Why anyone would want to drive a sub-2000lb, tall, gutless
: :>car on the highway is beyond me.
: I have a friend who flip the thing on the highway because he thinks he is
: driving a supercar... (ie: snap the steering wheel to the very left to change
: lane, and then snap back....) I guess the only 2000 pounder I might WANT to
Sounds like driver error rather than a fault of the car. I get the
impression that this friend of yours could roll just about anything.
John
dand...@digex.net
In <1996Sep19.084003.2792@condor>, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil writes:
[snip!]
>Don't be an idiot. Composite technology that can be used to
>make various misc. body/engine parts did not exist 35 years ago. The computer
>aided analysis that helps an engineer optimize chassis stiffness/weight/safety
>did not exist 35 years ago.
Which doesn't explain why GM used the same basic chassis from '64 to '87 for
the Chevelle/Tempest/F-85/Special/Malibu/LeMans/Regal/Cutlass Supreme/
Gran Prix/Monte Carlo and the '96 Impala chassis design dates back to about
'68.
>And yes, I've gone through the agony of trying to replace an engine in an early
>GM X car... as well as VW, Audi, Ford, Yugo, Fiat, tansvers engine/front drive
>cars (along with various rear drivers). The hardest? The X car. The second
>hardest? A mid 70's Suburban (and THAT one was done in a shop with access to a
>lift and pneumatic tools).
I have an early X-car. ('74 Nova) I don't see any problems with getting the
engine out. Please elaborate...
>He knows squat. I've had a number of front drive/unit body cars second and
>third hand - and I live in the northeast (with its proliferation of winter
>salt). I'll put up the corrosion resistance of a mid 80's Taurus (that my wife
>drives), Mustang (that I drive), or almost any other domestic against a
>domestic from pre '78. They're better, period. My wife's Taurus wagon after 9
>years has about 1/20th the rust my Dad's'74 Torino did at 2 years - and HIS
>experience was not uncommon.
I will admit that most new cars don't rust as bad as the old... but the duds that
come from the factory do rust MUCH faster, due to thinner sheetmetal.
As for second and third hand cars, I have driven many 2nd/3rd/4th hand FWD
cars, such as my friends cars and my mother's car. You pick them up for $750-
$2500 and they run for a year and a half before something serious develops,
and then you take them to the junkyard for scrap. And they all have the
same problems...crappy dry-rotted interiors with the roof hanging down and
chrome flakes all falling off...rusted out inner doors and trunk lids...noisy
subframes, engine mounts, and CV joints...little motors that are worn out and
can't be tuned correctly because the only thing that is adjustable is the timing...
little motors that are drowning in a puddle of their own oil and are polluting
because the computer can't compensate for the engine wear...poor resale
value (the local junkyard only gives $40 or $50 for the scrap.).
>>> for me, no thanks, all most all modern cars are junk, cant be fixed
>>> economically, and dont have a chassis..
>
>Uh-huh. Right. I guess if it can't be fixed with an 8 lb sledge, it can't be
>fixed economically.
>
>Yes they can be fixed economically. Do it all the time. As for having a
>chassis, they do - it's called a unit body. Unit bodies have been around for
>decades - including some rather heavy land barges of ages past. A friend's 59
>T-Bird comes to mind.... but I guess that 4000+ lb behemoth didn't have a
>chassis either.
Just compare the prices of parts. The starter for my daily driver is $40. And it
will fit on three of my five cars. My old roommate's starter was $170! It had to
be shipped from Korea! Then there is labor. I can change my alternator in
about a half an hour. Now imagine how long it would take on say, a Corolla.
Then multiply by at least $40.
Interesting enough, the original poster was comparing two cars that were
both of unit body construction. To me there is nothing wrong with unit
construction...as long as the rear wheels are the ones spinning.
Unit construction goes back even farther than '59. I think it started in '49
as a Hudson.
orfall
Redb...@no.where.net (Redbeard) writes:
>In article <01bba14a$9817a980$3f501a8a@eedgs2>, dsm...@eng.uab.edu says...
>>
>>According to my sources, Collectable Automobile for the '61 and the GM web
>>site for the '97, the numbers are:
>>
>>'61 Impala SS 2dr weighs 3700 lb.
>>'97 Grand Am SE weighs 2882 lb.
>Um, yeah, but you're comparing the full-size GM flagship of '61 with
>a mid-sized to compact sized car. Do you have the wieght spec on a
>late-model Caprice or Impala SS? My '63 Corvette weighs in at just
>over 3050 pounds with a full tank of gas and the hard top on. My
>1982 Buick Regal weighs (I'm guessing here) about 3300 lb. However,
>the 'Vette is a roadster, so it'll weigh more than an otherwise identical
>coupe. On the other hand, most pickups from the '60's weighed between
>3800 and 4200 lb. I'd like to find out just how much these newer full-sized
>cars are weighing...How much weight have they really been able to shed on
>cars in the last 20-30 years?
The Impala is not that much different form its 60's predecessor. It is
still a large v8 powered rear wheel drive car. The size of the car and its
basic design haven't changed. A better example is the Ford Crown Vicotria
(about the same size) which has used the same platform with a change of
engine since 1975. Change? If you want to compare it witha modern car
(one whose components date from at least the 80's, you'd be hard pressed to
find a suitable example.
BRAD ORFALL
orf...@usc.edu
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> Ah... But these are not cars of the '50s or '60s. I agree that many '70s cars
> are heavy as well. These cars have all that sound deadening, options, and
> other heavy parts such as the butt warmer/massager. Ironic that the '70s
> were years of 'downsizing'.
>
> One plus, though, is that these cars drive like big cars. Many newer cars with
> simular weight do not. They weight 4500 lbs, but try to act like 3000 lb
> ballerinas...with some success. But when it comes down to it, they are still
> very heavy, and the laws of physics do not change.
The Catalina was heavy because it had an extremely heavy frame, etc to
improve mandated crash/damage resistance. Really only the Caddy and
Marquis had a whole bunch of needless options. I consider A/C necessary
equipment, but not crap like power everything and "butt warmers" (which
incidentally no US cars from the 1970's that I know of ever had).
Plus, many big cars drove like yacts because no one knew enough to order
the optional bits that made them handle well. Maybe not as well as today's
cars but pretty well, well enough to easilly more than get out of their own
way. Of course it ientailed some sacrifice in ride quality, but not as much
as some people seem to think. Anyway I don't mind a "pillowy" ride but I
hate cars that wallow. So I'd rather have one with police suspension and
give up a bit of ride quality.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Young Song wrote:
> Actually, the Civic is pretty stable - it doesn't have such a narrow
> wheelbase. It's generally wider than other "compact" cars in the same class.
>
> Me, a happy Chevy Caprice Estate (THE big wagon) owner AND a Civic Hatchback
> (supercharged and modified to push 200 hp)
Actually I wasn't really referring to the Civic, it is a bit heavier and
wider/better handling than most cars in its class.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> Can Aardwolf look this up? I just moved, and my favorite car reference is
> misplaced.
Already did. Maybe with a couple of 200lb guys in it it weighs around
5000lbs, with the trunk fulla crap...
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Dennis Smith wrote:
> That was back when the manufacturers got to decide what category their cars
> fell into. Today, the DOT decides on the car's classification based on
> interior volume. So, who do you trust, GM or Big Brother?
Well, since DOT's standards seem to keep geting smaller as well (maybe
they think we won't notice when they call something the size of an EV-1 a
full-size family car), It all seems pretty relative to me. Space utilization
has become much more eficcient but it already has gotten to the point that
that seemingly can't be pushed too much further. By the curent standards
some of my barges fall so far outside even the fullsize category they
become simply "large" cars. Especially the current-generation Caprice,
with its slight "upsizing" _and_ better space utilization.
Aardwolf.
Leroy Curtis
In article <51udth$m...@news3.digex.net>, dand...@digex.net writes
>
>Unit construction goes back even farther than '59. I think it started in '49
>as a Hudson.
>
the 1920s. Citroen used it in the 1934 Traction Avant models, and
Chrysler's Airflow of the same year also used a form, albeit somewhat
compromised, of unitary build.
Regards
--
Leroy Curtis
Bailey Brown
dand...@digex.net writes:
>In <1996Sep19.084003.2792@condor>, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil writes:
>>And yes, I've gone through the agony of trying to replace an engine in an early
>>GM X car... as well as VW, Audi, Ford, Yugo, Fiat, tansvers engine/front drive
>>cars (along with various rear drivers). The hardest? The X car. The second
>>hardest? A mid 70's Suburban (and THAT one was done in a shop with access to a
>>lift and pneumatic tools).
>I have an early X-car. ('74 Nova) I don't see any problems with getting the
>engine out. Please elaborate...
Weren't the X cars fwd cars like the Chevy Citation?
Bailey
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>> One plus, though, is that these cars drive like big cars. Many newer cars with
>> simular weight do not. They weight 4500 lbs, but try to act like 3000 lb
>> ballerinas...with some success. But when it comes down to it, they are still
>> very heavy, and the laws of physics do not change.
This got me to thinking of how cars have changed in the last 20 years. Forst
they were boats with monsterous engines that put out no power (Im talking after
76). They got about 20-30mpg. Then they got small and less powerful, still got
20-30mpg. Now they have gotten a bit larger, more powerful, and still only
get 20-30mpg!! Whats goin' on here?!? Since then technology has gone from carbs
and crude ignitions, to Multiport fuelinjection with precisely controlled
distributorless ingnitions. Drivelines have improved in efficiency as well.
<this is all generalizations, I know very few cars of the late 70's got
20-30mpg.. :) >
/\ /\/\
/ ^\/^\ /\ //\ \ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Dept of Electrical Engr.
/ \___/^\// \ ^\_______________________________________________________
Paul O'Gorman - | 93 Explorer 4x4 / 86 Cougar GS 5.0
______________________________________|________________________________________
It is too late for the pebbles to vote, as the avelanche has already started.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
dand...@digex.net
In <bailey.8...@animal.blarg.net>, bai...@animal.blarg.net (Bailey Brown) writes:
>dand...@digex.net writes:
>
>>In <1996Sep19.084003.2792@condor>, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil writes:
>
>>>GM X car... as well as VW, Audi, Ford, Yugo, Fiat, tansvers engine/front drive
>>>cars (along with various rear drivers). The hardest? The X car. The second
>>>hardest? A mid 70's Suburban (and THAT one was done in a shop with access to a
>>>lift and pneumatic tools).
>
>>engine out. Please elaborate...
>
>Weren't the X cars fwd cars like the Chevy Citation?
The original X-cars were the Novas. (I'm not sure if Chevy II's were X-cars or not...
I've only heard post-'68 Novas referred as X-cars.) In '79 the Nova name was
temporarily put to rest when GM switched the X-cars from RWD to FWD and
called it the '80 Citation. As a matter of fact, the Chevy was the only X-car
to be renamed in '79/'80, the Phoenix, Skylark and Omega nameplates were all
maintained for the new FWD cars. Just be glad Chevy didn't disgrace the
Chevy II name by calling it the Chevy III ;-), like they disgraced the Nova name
in '86.
Lloyd R. Parker
Bailey Brown (bai...@animal.blarg.net) wrote:
: >I have an early X-car. ('74 Nova) I don't see any problems with getting the
: >engine out. Please elaborate...
:
: Weren't the X cars fwd cars like the Chevy Citation?
: Bailey
:
X was the designation for rwd compacts before the fwd ones. The Chevy
II, Nova, Apollo, Skylark, Omega, Ventura II, Ventura, and Phoenix before
1980 were all X bodies. Just like the A bodies were rwd before 1982 and
fwd after, GM doesn't change the body designation often.
brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil
In article <51udth$m...@news3.digex.net>, dand...@digex.net writes:
> In <1996Sep19.084003.2792@condor>, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil writes:
>>Don't be an idiot. Composite technology that can be used to
>>make various misc. body/engine parts did not exist 35 years ago. The computer
>>aided analysis that helps an engineer optimize chassis stiffness/weight/safety
>>did not exist 35 years ago.
>
> Which doesn't explain why GM used the same basic chassis from '64 to '87 for
> the Chevelle/Tempest/F-85/Special/Malibu/LeMans/Regal/Cutlass Supreme/
> Gran Prix/Monte Carlo and the '96 Impala chassis design dates back to about
> '68.
I you used 60's technology to meet 90's safety and emissions standards, it's
gonna be a lot more difficult (and weight a lot more). I was responding to
someone asserting that the state of automotive mechanical engineering hasn't
advanced in 30+ years.
>
>>And yes, I've gone through the agony of trying to replace an engine in an early
>>GM X car... as well as VW, Audi, Ford, Yugo, Fiat, tansvers engine/front drive
>>cars (along with various rear drivers). The hardest? The X car. The second
>>hardest? A mid 70's Suburban (and THAT one was done in a shop with access to a
>>lift and pneumatic tools).
>
> I have an early X-car. ('74 Nova) I don't see any problems with getting the
> engine out. Please elaborate...
'74 Nova? An X car? Unless that designation was used back in the 60's (when
that chassis came out), it is not an X car. The ones I'm referring to are the
Chevy Citation/Pontiac Phoenix (etc.) front drivers introduced in 1979.
>
>>He knows squat. I've had a number of front drive/unit body cars second and
>>third hand - and I live in the northeast (with its proliferation of winter
>>salt). I'll put up the corrosion resistance of a mid 80's Taurus (that my wife
>>drives), Mustang (that I drive), or almost any other domestic against a
>>domestic from pre '78. They're better, period. My wife's Taurus wagon after 9
>>years has about 1/20th the rust my Dad's'74 Torino did at 2 years - and HIS
>>experience was not uncommon.
>
> I will admit that most new cars don't rust as bad as the old... but the duds that
> come from the factory do rust MUCH faster, due to thinner sheetmetal.
>
The original assertion was that ALL new cars rust down to nothing in no time.
Ya just made my point - that the newer stuff holds up much better unless
there's a rather serious factory defect...
> As for second and third hand cars, I have driven many 2nd/3rd/4th hand FWD
> cars, such as my friends cars and my mother's car. You pick them up for $750-
> $2500 and they run for a year and a half before something serious develops,
> and then you take them to the junkyard for scrap. And they all have the
> same problems...crappy dry-rotted interiors with the roof hanging down and
> chrome flakes all falling off...rusted out inner doors and trunk lids...
All unrelated to which end drives the car.
> noisy
> subframes, engine mounts, and CV joints...
True higher maintenance items for FWD... but considering the infrequency these
repairs should have to be accomplished (every 80,000 miles?) these hardly
qualify as making these cars 'impossible to maintain economically'.
> little motors that are worn out and
> can't be tuned correctly because the only thing that is adjustable
> is the timing...
> little motors that are drowning in a puddle of their own oil and are polluting
> because the computer can't compensate for the engine wear...poor resale
> value (the local junkyard only gives $40 or $50 for the scrap.).
Again, unrelated to which end drives the car. As for little engines wearing so
badly - a 2 liter making 90 HP in a 2500 lb car is not going to take to bad
maintenance as well as a 5.7 liter making 160 HP in a 3500 lb. car. Maintain
them properly, though - and the better examples are capable of going some
incredibly high mileages (200K+)
>
>>>> for me, no thanks, all most all modern cars are junk, cant be fixed
>>>> economically, and dont have a chassis..
>>
>>Uh-huh. Right. I guess if it can't be fixed with an 8 lb sledge, it can't be
>>fixed economically.
>>
>>Yes they can be fixed economically. Do it all the time. As for having a
>>chassis, they do - it's called a unit body. Unit bodies have been around for
>>decades - including some rather heavy land barges of ages past. A friend's 59
>>T-Bird comes to mind.... but I guess that 4000+ lb behemoth didn't have a
>>chassis either.
>
> Just compare the prices of parts. The starter for my daily driver is $40.
> And it
> will fit on three of my five cars. My old roommate's starter was $170!
Again, irrelavent to which end drives the car. Would you rather buy a starter
for an Escort or a 944?
When I needed a starter for my '85 5.0 Mustang, I got prices between $49 and
$107. Japanese and German starters tend to be pricey, for rear as well as front
wheel drives.
There is nothing inherently different between a FWD and RWD starter.
> It had to
> be shipped from Korea! Then there is labor. I can change my alternator in
> about a half an hour. Now imagine how long it would take on say, a Corolla.
> Then multiply by at least $40.
Again, largely irrelavent to FWD. If the alternator's on top, it's usually not
too bad. If it's buried, look out -
BTW, I can change the alternator in my wife's Taurus in <30 min.
>
> Interesting enough, the original poster was comparing two cars that were
> both of unit body construction. To me there is nothing wrong with unit
> construction...as long as the rear wheels are the ones spinning.
>
> Unit construction goes back even farther than '59. I think it started in '49
> as a Hudson.
You may be right about that - I was only pointing out that unit body
construction is not new nor confined to shoeboxes.
As far as which end drives the car, FWD's are in general a bit more maintenance
intensive than RWD's but they do return some benefit (primarily winter weather
traction). Reasonable care, however, will let most of them live very long lives
with minimal to moderate maintenance. Does it work out economically? FWD
probably does not save money in of itself - but for some people it is certainly
woth the extra piece of mind when the white stuff starts falling.
Living with it doesn't have to be the maintenance nightmare some people think,
though...
Robert Bott
orf...@aludra.usc.edu (orfall) wrote:
>Redb...@no.where.net (Redbeard) writes:
>>In article <01bba14a$9817a980$3f501a8a@eedgs2>, dsm...@eng.uab.edu says...
>>>
>>>According to my sources, Collectable Automobile for the '61 and the GM web
>>>site for the '97, the numbers are:
>>>
>>>'61 Impala SS 2dr weighs 3700 lb.
>>>'97 Grand Am SE weighs 2882 lb.
>>Um, yeah, but you're comparing the full-size GM flagship of '61 with
>>a mid-sized to compact sized car. Do you have the wieght spec on a
>>late-model Caprice or Impala SS? My '63 Corvette weighs in at just
>>over 3050 pounds with a full tank of gas and the hard top on. My
>>1982 Buick Regal weighs (I'm guessing here) about 3300 lb. However,
>>the 'Vette is a roadster, so it'll weigh more than an otherwise identical
>>coupe. On the other hand, most pickups from the '60's weighed between
>>3800 and 4200 lb. I'd like to find out just how much these newer full-sized
>>cars are weighing...How much weight have they really been able to shed on
>>cars in the last 20-30 years?
>The Impala is not that much different form its 60's predecessor. It is
>still a large v8 powered rear wheel drive car. The size of the car and its
>basic design haven't changed.
HELLO!!!! My brother's 72 Impala is about the size of two nearly new
ones. You can put eight people in that car as comfortably as 6 in a
new one.
While some of what you said is true, there was a MAJOR size change.
Aardwolf
Lawrence Artz wrote:
> Nowadays they call a Ford Taurus a full-size car even though it is no
> bigger than my Chevy II (at least Hertz rental calls it that). Of course,
> 6 passengers and luggage in a Taurus, the car is freighted down to the
> bottom of the suspension stops (with kind of a squished seating feeling
> inside).
I had thought the Taurus was a midsize. In fact I'm sure it is, as the
Intrepid was also supposed to be.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
> <this is all generalizations, I know very few cars of the late 70's got
> 20-30mpg.. :) >
Yeah for any ones of decent size, try half that. In fact almost none got any
more than 20mpg.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>GM doesn't change the body designation often.
There are only so many letters in the alphabet after all...
Aardwolf.
David A. Lyons
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Young Song wrote:
> Granted the Civic ain't no Porsche 911, but some of these kids out there can
> trick them up pretty good. I saw some pretty fast Civics pull quarter miles in
> the 12 second range. Fastest one out is a CRX with a quarter mile of 10.81
> sec. That ain't so bad for a tiny little four banger...
Yeah, but how streetable is a 10-second 4-banger?
David Lyons
http://g50mc.org/members/lyonsd
Fire the Liar: Clinton/Gone '96
dand...@digex.net
In <1996Sep23.100506.2794@condor>, brand...@condor.navsses.navy.mil writes:
>> I have an early X-car. ('74 Nova) I don't see any problems with getting the
>> engine out. Please elaborate...
>
>'74 Nova? An X car? Unless that designation was used back in the 60's (when
>that chassis came out), it is not an X car. The ones I'm referring to are the
>Chevy Citation/Pontiac Phoenix (etc.) front drivers introduced in 1979.
As I stated in a previous post, the FWD Citation started in '80. The desination
X was used as early as '68 in the form X-bodies, to differentiate it from the
F-bodies (Firebird,Camaro), A-bodies (Chevelle/Tempest/Cutlass/Skylark),
and the B-bodies (all full size).
>> noisy
>> subframes, engine mounts, and CV joints...
>
>True higher maintenance items for FWD... but considering the infrequency these
>repairs should have to be accomplished (every 80,000 miles?) these hardly
>qualify as making these cars 'impossible to maintain economically'.
However, very few people want to fix these things when the repair cost
exceeds the value of the car. The RWD/full frame counterparts last considerably
longer and cost less to replace.
>Again, irrelavent to which end drives the car. Would you rather buy a starter
>for an Escort or a 944?
Keep in mind that this discussion veered off of the RWD/FWD question long
ago. The discussion at this point is more like old Detroit tanks vs. the world.
I'd rather buy the starter for an RWD Regal.
>When I needed a starter for my '85 5.0 Mustang, I got prices between $49 and
>$107. Japanese and German starters tend to be pricey, for rear as well as front
>wheel drives.
>
>There is nothing inherently different between a FWD and RWD starter.
No, and many are interchangable. However, depending on design, FWD
starters can be tough to change.
>As far as which end drives the car, FWD's are in general a bit more maintenance
>intensive than RWD's but they do return some benefit (primarily winter weather
>traction). Reasonable care, however, will let most of them live very long lives
>with minimal to moderate maintenance. Does it work out economically? FWD
>probably does not save money in of itself - but for some people it is certainly
>woth the extra piece of mind when the white stuff starts falling.
This is the point about FWD that drives me craziest. About 7 or 8 years ago, one
of the columists for Car and Driver was driving a high priced FWD sedan on snowy
roads at what he felt was a reasonable speed. Him and his wife came up on a
slow moving truck, and they attempted to slow, however the car simply slid
and was unresponsive, finally plowing into the back of the truck, smashing his
wife's face into the bumper. While it must be taken with a grain of salt, he
then launched into a scathing comparison between RWD and FWD in real world
conditions, and found the improvement of FWD in snow to be minimal, at best.
Instead it is more of a selling point that the car makers use to brain-wash us
into purchasing smaller FWD cars, which are cheaper to built.
On the other hand, I've found FWD to have a slight edge over RWD, however,
this edge is nullified simply by throwing a few bags of sand, or kitty litter in
the trunk. Add some good snow tires and I will take on anyone in my mother's
'86 Buick wagon.
I still can't believe what I plowed that car through during the blizzard of '96.
dand...@digex.net
In <524i4m$d...@netra.oscs.montana.edu>, gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
>>> One plus, though, is that these cars drive like big cars. Many newer cars with
>>> simular weight do not. They weight 4500 lbs, but try to act like 3000 lb
>>> ballerinas...with some success. But when it comes down to it, they are still
>>> very heavy, and the laws of physics do not change.
>
>This got me to thinking of how cars have changed in the last 20 years. Forst
>they were boats with monsterous engines that put out no power (Im talking after
>76). They got about 20-30mpg. Then they got small and less powerful, still got
>20-30mpg. Now they have gotten a bit larger, more powerful, and still only
>get 20-30mpg!! Whats goin' on here?!? Since then technology has gone from carbs
>and crude ignitions, to Multiport fuelinjection with precisely controlled
>distributorless ingnitions. Drivelines have improved in efficiency as well.
One word: stuffing. Many of these cars continue to weigh more and more,
while the exterior dimension don't change.
** OHHHH!!! But I WANT a heated butt warmer and foot massager in the trunk!
WAHHHHHHHH!!!!! **
><this is all generalizations, I know very few cars of the late 70's got
>20-30mpg.. :)
20 mpg, maybe. On the freeway. 8 mpg in the city.
dand...@digex.net
In <526qml$r...@lonepeak.vii.com>, rb...@vii.com (Robert Bott) writes:
[snip!]
>>The Impala is not that much different form its 60's predecessor. It is
>>still a large v8 powered rear wheel drive car. The size of the car and its
>>basic design haven't changed.
>
>HELLO!!!! My brother's 72 Impala is about the size of two nearly new
>ones. You can put eight people in that car as comfortably as 6 in a
>new one.
>
>While some of what you said is true, there was a MAJOR size change.
Get out your tape measure and scale. You'll surprise yourself.
Older Detriot cars are very large in apperance. There was no effort to
hide this size; in fact size was considered a status item, so Detriot probably
tried to make them look large.
Now people who are used to small cars are afraid to drive a tank. Detriot
has combatted this with soft corners and panels that appear to bend away
from you. The new Taurus and Aurora and good examples of this. Both
appear to be intermediate, but remember, the new Riveria is the same size.
It however appers large...to better suit the traditional older buyer that Buick
wants. The Caprice, to many, appears to be a whale. But keep in mind that
Detriot put alot of effort into making the car appear up to date, yet it was
built larger than the 'downsized' Caprice that came before it. It's curved panels
attempt to hide the girth, but not completely; therefore the whale appearence.
(For the record, I like the Impala design)
As for the number of folks you could fit inside, I only have two possible
explainations: 1) The newer model has more interior stuffing, door width, roof
thickness, puffier seats, etc. Or 2) your 6 folks have grown. :-) I have a '68
Catalina. It's big, but there is no way you could fit 8 COMFORTLY. However,
I could fit 10 or 12, if I can stack them.
Also remember that the basic chassis for the Caprice hasn't changed since at
least '70, so the apples can't fall far from the tree.
John Weir
37511...@idsonline.com> <3238F5...@itis.com> <51aucf$u...@news3.digex.net> <323A09...@itis.com> <51d8k1$8...@news3.digex.net> <3 <51jit8$5...@newsops.execpc.com> <3240DF...@itis.com> <51stgs$9...@ktk2.smartt.com> <51tn47$1...@news1.slip.net> <Pin
e.OSF.3.93.960923...@borg.alf.dec.com>
Organization: Exec-PC
Distribution:
David A. Lyons (lyo...@alf.dec.com) wrote:
There really aren't too many cars that are capable of this feat that one
could designate "streetable", 4-banger or not.
John
Lloyd R. Parker
Aardwolf (se1...@itis.com) wrote:
Officially, the Taurus is a mid-size, although near the top of the
range. Officially, the LHs are full-size, although near the bottom of
that range. Chrysler seems to design cars to fit into the next higher
range -- Neon is officially a compact and Stratus is officially a mid-size.
Lloyd R. Parker
Aardwolf (se1...@itis.com) wrote:
Well, Chrysler changed from a 1-letter designation (A, B, etc) to a
2-letter designation (LH, JA, etc) shortly after their acquisition of
Jeep. 2 letters gives you a lot more possibilities! GM tried going to a
numerical designation -- wasn't the W-body supposed to be the GM-80 or
some such? But they seem to have abandoned that.
Robert Bott
dand...@digex.net wrote:
>In <526qml$r...@lonepeak.vii.com>, rb...@vii.com (Robert Bott) writes:
>[snip!]
>>>The Impala is not that much different form its 60's predecessor. It is
>>>still a large v8 powered rear wheel drive car. The size of the car and its
>>>basic design haven't changed.
>>
>>HELLO!!!! My brother's 72 Impala is about the size of two nearly new
>>ones. You can put eight people in that car as comfortably as 6 in a
>>new one.
>>
>>While some of what you said is true, there was a MAJOR size change.
>Get out your tape measure and scale. You'll surprise yourself.
I doubt it, but I am interested to know the dimensins of a new one. I
drove a 72 and an 8x Impala the same year while attending the
university. The 80's impala was easy to park in a typical parking
spot while the 72 would have the tires on each side of the car
touching the yellow lines. As to the length, I do not know the
length, but it would not fit in my old one car garage that the 80's
impala would.
I have no idea about weight differences.
I assume the newer impalas are slightly smaller that the 80's, but
KNOW they are smaller than the 70's.
>Older Detriot cars are very large in apperance. There was no effort to
>hide this size; in fact size was considered a status item, so Detriot probably
>tried to make them look large.
>Now people who are used to small cars are afraid to drive a tank. Detriot
>has combatted this with soft corners and panels that appear to bend away
>from you. The new Taurus and Aurora and good examples of this. Both
>appear to be intermediate, but remember, the new Riveria is the same size.
>It however appers large...to better suit the traditional older buyer that Buick
>wants. The Caprice, to many, appears to be a whale. But keep in mind that
>Detriot put alot of effort into making the car appear up to date, yet it was
>built larger than the 'downsized' Caprice that came before it. It's curved panels
>attempt to hide the girth, but not completely; therefore the whale appearence.
>(For the record, I like the Impala design)
>As for the number of folks you could fit inside, I only have two possible
>explainations: 1) The newer model has more interior stuffing, door width, roof
>thickness, puffier seats, etc. Or 2) your 6 folks have grown. :-) I have a '68
>Catalina. It's big, but there is no way you could fit 8 COMFORTLY. However,
>I could fit 10 or 12, if I can stack them.
First, I did not say comfortably, I said MORE comfortably.
Second, a change in interior sounds like a design change. The reason
you can fit 8 is because of the 2 full length bench seats - no
stacking.
The quote I comented on is "The size of the car and it's basic design
haven't changed".
1. While still a large car. The size has changed!
2. "basic" is subject to an indivual interpretation. The "basic"
design of all automobiles hasn't changed in 30+ years. (inflatable
tires, internal combustion engine ect.)
Note1: Not to give the wrong impression, I do believe the impala
design has changed less than other automobiles, but I do not agree
that this is a bad thing. Remember, there are as many bad new designs
as good ones. Hopefully we never see another Yugo.
Note2: As to the subject line, I feel there will never be an end to
the rear wheel drive car, most likely an end to new productoin cars in
rear wheel drive due to the fact that the automobile industry is
market driven and most people seem to prefer FWD.
I do however believe there are some cars of years gone by that are
loved by myself, and many others who read this group, that will be
around forever.
>Also remember that the basic chassis for the Caprice hasn't changed since at
>least '70, so the apples can't fall far from the tree.
Yes, all apples fall from apple trees however a Granny Smith is
different than a Red Delicious.
You can plant different apple trees and all fruit will have similar
features, but if you plant an unknown variety of tree, it might be a
pear(another good fruit), or a lemon.
While being conservative doesn't bring the newest technology, I
believe the newest technology is best experimented with in a new line
of car (as GM does) and let the people tooking for a slightly more
modern car with the reliability of their old impala get exactly what
they want.
Bob
Steve Lilly
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lawrence Artz wrote:
> > Nowadays they call a Ford Taurus a full-size car even though it is no
> > bigger than my Chevy II (at least Hertz rental calls it that). Of course,
> > 6 passengers and luggage in a Taurus, the car is freighted down to the
> > bottom of the suspension stops (with kind of a squished seating feeling
> > inside).
>
> I had thought the Taurus was a midsize. In fact I'm sure it is, as the
> Intrepid was also supposed to be.
>
> Aardwolf.
The rental companies have a habit of upsizing their designations. A few
years ago, I drove a Chev. Cavalier rental. The rental company called it
a midsize even though GM considered it a compact.
Steve L.
Rex
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
>
> >You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
> >big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
> >3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
> >was over 4500 lbs.
>
> It is rediculous what some of those things weighs. A Suburban weighs some where
> around 5500lbs! No wonder they get such horrible fuel econ. As far as cars from
> the 60's go though, take a look at a 69 Buick Electra, they weighed a good 5000
> lb!
Hmmmm...and your point?
Remember, not all of us want to cramp our 6'2" frames into a little
rattletrap beercan of a Datsun/Toyota/Honda and listen to the
little sewing machine whine at freeway speeds. (And, yes, I have
driven/ridden in enough of them to know what I am talking about.)
Personally, I love my '96 F250 supercab longbed 4x4...all 5200 lbs
of it (plus shell, of course). It's got room for three up
front, a whole back seat for the dog, you can carry a house full
of stuff, and you can do it all in comfort.
And, for the most part, the little cars give you a respectful
distance.
Oh, and don't make the mistake of thinking that pollution has any
connection with gas mileage (before we start some useless
supposed-greenhouse pollution discussion here). My truck makes
less polution at 12 mpg than a 1980's Honda does at 30 mpg.
Rex (Hmmmm...did I mention that it has a 460? VAROOM!)
Rex
John Weir wrote:
> David Wei (davi...@uvic.ca) wrote:
> : In message <3240DF...@itis.com> - Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
>
> : :>> BTW, Honda Civic, please! I refuse to help any friends or relatives with their
> : :>> cars if they buy a little death trap like that. Personnally, I'll continue to
> : :>
> : :>You said it! Why anyone would want to drive a sub-2000lb, tall, gutless
> : :>car on the highway is beyond me.
>
> : I have a friend who flip the thing on the highway because he thinks he is
> : driving a supercar... (ie: snap the steering wheel to the very left to change
> : lane, and then snap back....) I guess the only 2000 pounder I might WANT to
Hmmmm...reminds me of the most violent car accident I was ever
in:
A friend of mine and I were riding with a girl in her late-80's/
early-90's Hunday (um...Hundai...er, you know which one I am
talking about), when she bumped into a car in the next lane.
Well, we started to swerve and spin out of control (what do you
expect out of 135-12 tires?), until we finally ended up on the
front lawn of an apartment complex.
All of the windows blew out (remember, we just bumed the car
next to us, no other impacts), all 4 tires blew out, and the
engine/transaxle was lying in the street (remember again, we were
already up on the lawn, past the sidewalk). I'm not kidding.
So, of course the car was undrivable (no engine), and I assume
they brought a recycling truck by to crush it and send it back
to Alcoa (or it's Korean equivalent).
Since that day, I just don't ride in a car whose name I can't
pronounce, or whose parent company's name I can't pronounce,
or whose country of origin I can't pronounce.
I got lucky...and it's just not worth flirting that closely with
death. Imagine if we actually would have hit something (besides
the curb)! Scary...
Rex (Remember, $45,000 for an Infiniti is still waaaaaay too
much to spend on a Datsun.)
> Sounds like driver error rather than a fault of the car. I get the
> impression that this friend of yours could roll just about anything.
>
> John
Dennis W Johnson
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Aardwolf wrote:
> dand...@digex.net wrote:
> > ...Honda Civic...little death trap like that...I'll...classify my
> > Tempest as a 'compact'. ;-)... (much editing accomplished)
> You said it! Why anyone would want to drive a sub-2000lb, tall, gutless
I know of a case where a Honda Civic hit an early 80's Crown Vic headon.
When the dust settled the Honda steering wheel was in the back seat and
the occupants in the Vic were treated for seat belt burns and released.
However, there is always someone out there who is bigger. I also know a
trucker (Mack/Cummins) who hit an International Travelall broadside and
it went under the front wheels and lodged in front of the drivers. Both
Honda and IH drivers were fatals, BTW.
BUT...at a later date the Mack was parked three inches too close to a
set of railroad tracks and while Bern was in the trailer loading sugar...
along comes Mr. Loco Motive and he ripped the Mack out from under the
trailer and rolled it into a large green ball. Also, Bernie's insurance
had to pay to repaint black paint over the green that had been rubbed
into the side of the train.
If there is any moral to this story it would be to pick on someone your
own size...unless you are the bigger one!
dj
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> As for the number of folks you could fit inside, I only have two possible
> explainations: 1) The newer model has more interior stuffing, door width, roof
> thickness, puffier seats, etc. Or 2) your 6 folks have grown. :-) I have a '68
> Catalina. It's big, but there is no way you could fit 8 COMFORTLY.
No, you could seat six comfortably, not eight (I like my space, and it only
had six positions anyway)
> Also remember that the basic chassis for the Caprice hasn't changed since at
> least '70, so the apples can't fall far from the tree.
Actually it changed pretty significantly (in detail) for 1977, but not much
since then.
Yes Detroit did try to make them look larger until the late '70's, those
models actually were significantly larger overall (then as big as they
would ever get), but the newer ones have much less wasted space, and the
current Caprices have more room than those mid '70's models.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Robert Bott wrote:
> I doubt it, but I am interested to know the dimensins of a new one. I
> drove a 72 and an 8x Impala the same year while attending the
> university. The 80's impala was easy to park in a typical parking
> spot while the 72 would have the tires on each side of the car
> touching the yellow lines. As to the length, I do not know the
> length, but it would not fit in my old one car garage that the 80's
> impala would.
The new one is larger than the '80's cars but smaller than the mid-'70s.
It is a sightly "upsized" version of the '80's (IE 1977 era) cars on the
same chassis.
> I have no idea about weight differences.
1976--4500lbs
1978--3800lbs
1996--4200lbs
>
> 1. While still a large car. The size has changed!
Yes the mid '70's cars were significantly more massive and larger in
exterior dimensions, but the current cars actually have a bit more
interior space than those old barges. Those in between (the '77-'90 cars)
were significantly smaller and lighter than the mid '70's cars, but had
about the same useable interior space.
> 2. "basic" is subject to an indivual interpretation. The "basic"
> design of all automobiles hasn't changed in 30+ years. (inflatable
> tires, internal combustion engine ect.)
Yes the new generation cars use almost exactly the same frame as the '77
era but that is somewhat different form the one used in the '71-'76 cars.
> While being conservative doesn't bring the newest technology, I
> believe the newest technology is best experimented with in a new line
> of car (as GM does) and let the people tooking for a slightly more
> modern car with the reliability of their old impala get exactly what
> they want.
Unfortunately GM does not agree, and has made one of their patented bad
decisions™, deciding to axe the car.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> The class of '61 Tempest/F-85/Special and Corvairs were considered compacts,
> but by '66 the Tempest/F-85/Special had bulked up to intermediate size. The
> Chevy II/Nova was bulked up to intermediate in '68. You ever notice how most
> small cars grow year after year? Especially Japanese cars.
>
> Because I am of full-size variety myself, I consider the A-bodies to be right
> on the border between compact and intermediate. I consider anything smaller
> than a Camaro/Chevy II/Nova to be non-existent.
Well, as I like the '70's era GM cars, I consider the A-bodies to be right
between full- and mid-sized. (They did get pretty huge from '73-'77, and
kept their relative size when both they and the fullsize cars were
downsized). I consider the X-cars of that era to be compacts (albeit very
large ones) beacause of limited interior space. Although in outside
dimensions and mass they are as large or larger than the downsized
A-bodies, the latter have much more interior room.
And yes I consider anything smaller to be almost nonexistant (except for
the odd Holden Torana).
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Hey my Grand Am gets much better milage than that---11 in the city (and
13 on the highway) ;-), my Catalina 10/12, and my Polara 440 7/10!
Aardwolf.
WatchDevil
In article <528nk8$c...@newsops.execpc.com>, jc...@earth.execpc.com (John
Weir) writes:
> David Lyons
>: http://g50mc.org/members/lyonsd
>: Fire the Liar: Clinton/Gone '96
>
>
Fleetwood Mac is getting together for the new Clinton campaign song...
"GO YOUR OWN WAY"
Watchdevil http://members.aol.com/watchdevil/html/index.htm
"Love the lifestyle if you feel it... don't try to change, baby you never
will..."
~Stevie
Nicks~
Bill
I
>This got me to thinking of how cars have changed in the last 20 years. Forst
>they were boats with monsterous engines that put out no power (Im talking after
>76). They got about 20-30mpg. Then they got small and less powerful, still got
>20-30mpg. Now they have gotten a bit larger, more powerful, and still only
>get 20-30mpg!! Whats goin' on here?!? Since then technology has gone from carbs
>and crude ignitions, to Multiport fuelinjection with precisely controlled
>distributorless ingnitions. Drivelines have improved in efficiency as well.
What???
In the 70's a Chev Caprice probably got 8-15 MPG, in the 80's the MPG
was up to 12-20, in the 90's it's 17-29! And the car is still about
the same size! I think thats pretty good. And whats more the 1996
Caprice probably pollutes 1/50th as much as it's 70's version.
Seems like progress to me. All the "large" US autos get GREAT MPG
these days. Almost all have #'s in the 17-28 range. That one hell
of alot better than the SUV's everyone seems to love. Trace a
particular auto from the 70's to today, and unless it was severely
redesigned, (like the mustang, grand am, bonneville, etc) you will
find a progressively cleaner auto, with progressively better MPG.
dand...@digex.net
>the rear wheel drive car, most likely an end to new productoin cars in
>rear wheel drive due to the fact that the automobile industry is
>market driven and most people seem to prefer FWD.
Actually, that could be up for conjecture. GM, is really happy with the
chassis design of the Opel Omega (I think that's the name)/Cadillac Catera,
and has plans on possibly using it for a new generation of intermediate/full size
RWD cars. We can only hope. :-)
Then there is GM's other plan: To resusitate the Caprice nameplate on a enlarged
Lumina chassis, just like Toyota makes Avalons out of Camrys. FWD Caprices.
Ugh!
If the Catera takes off, I think GM will go with the first plan. There are reasons
why high priced European and Japanese cars are RWD, and it's only a matter
of time before people demand better than FWD.
dand...@digex.net
All my cars have been geared numerically low. Takes lots of gas in the city
to get them moving... Then the one barely idles at 80.
dand...@digex.net
In <horwath.14...@interaccess.com>, hor...@interaccess.com (Bill ) writes:
[snip!]
>In the 70's a Chev Caprice probably got 8-15 MPG, in the 80's the MPG
>was up to 12-20, in the 90's it's 17-29! And the car is still about
>the same size! I think thats pretty good. And whats more the 1996
>Caprice probably pollutes 1/50th as much as it's 70's version.
>Seems like progress to me. All the "large" US autos get GREAT MPG
>these days. Almost all have #'s in the 17-28 range. That one hell
>of alot better than the SUV's everyone seems to love. Trace a
>particular auto from the 70's to today, and unless it was severely
>redesigned, (like the mustang, grand am, bonneville, etc) you will
>find a progressively cleaner auto, with progressively better MPG.
The year of the big emissions drop is '75. The next big drop was '79.
Reason: Catalysts. Next reason: Open element catalysts. If you want
your '60s anything to pass '94 emissions, just tune it and put a cat on it.
Raimo Pihlajamäki
Is the end of the front wheel driven car comming soon - after the BMW 500
series?
Aardwolf
Bailey Brown wrote:
> Weren't the X cars fwd cars like the Chevy Citation?
Only since 1980. From circa 1970 through till 1979 they were the
Nova-type cars. Unit body "compact" rear drivers. Chevy Nova, Buick
Apollo/Skylark, Oldsmobile Omega and Pontiac Ventura/Phoenix. And the
1975-79 Cadillac Seville was a very close relative as well. I have a
friend who has a bright red-orange 1974 Buick Apollo fastback--quite a
striking (and unique) car. I see a few similar vintage Novas that color
around now and then but no Apollos. However it's a very base model with
only a 6 cyl. I'm kinda myself looking around for a 1976 Ventura (best
front end style on an X-car of that generation, in my view) police package
sedan or fastback with a 350 4v V8.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> Well, Chrysler changed from a 1-letter designation (A, B, etc) to a
> 2-letter designation (LH, JA, etc) shortly after their acquisition of
> Jeep. 2 letters gives you a lot more possibilities! GM tried going to a
> numerical designation -- wasn't the W-body supposed to be the GM-80 or
> some such? But they seem to have abandoned that.
Yup I was being a bit overly simplistic, still true in the US though, except
for the Catera. That, along with the Opel/Vauxhall Omega and VT
Commodore uses the new GM-2800 body, which I do not believe has a
letter designation. Probably as with the rest of their Euro cars, at least
those not based on US chassis (I don't think any more are anyway). The
Aussies use a two-letter system too, but as they do not restyle their cars
every year, the first letter still indicates body class, the second indicates
which sub-group (IE sequential facelift) it is currently. EG the
Commodore evolution went; VB,VC,VH,VK,VL;VN,VP,VR,VS;VT (for 1997).
(The semicolons indicate a total redesign, but that isn't accounted for in
their labelling as anything more than just another "facelift".)
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Dennis W Johnson wrote:
> I know of a case where a Honda Civic hit an early 80's Crown Vic headon.
> When the dust settled the Honda steering wheel was in the back seat and
> the occupants in the Vic were treated for seat belt burns and released.
>
> However, there is always someone out there who is bigger. I also know a
> trucker (Mack/Cummins) who hit an International Travelall broadside and
> it went under the front wheels and lodged in front of the drivers. Both
> Honda and IH drivers were fatals, BTW.
>
> BUT...at a later date the Mack was parked three inches too close to a
> set of railroad tracks and while Bern was in the trailer loading sugar...
> along comes Mr. Loco Motive and he ripped the Mack out from under the
> trailer and rolled it into a large green ball. Also, Bernie's insurance
> had to pay to repaint black paint over the green that had been rubbed
> into the side of the train.
>
> If there is any moral to this story it would be to pick on someone your
> own size...unless you are the bigger one!
Yup, I'm sure aware of this kinda stuff, however since by far most of the
traffic on the roads is car-size, I'll play the odds favorably in a great big
car.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
>
> In <324888...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
> >dand...@digex.net wrote:
> >> 20 mpg, maybe. On the freeway. 8 mpg in the city.
> >
> >Hey my Grand Am gets much better milage than that---11 in the city (and
> >13 on the highway) ;-), my Catalina 10/12, and my Polara 440 7/10!
>
> All my cars have been geared numerically low. Takes lots of gas in the city
> to get them moving... Then the one barely idles at 80.
Yeah but unfortunately you'll have such a complete lack of mechanical
advantage at higher speeds they won't do much over 100 anyway, the lower
gearing won't be able to overcome the drag. For highway cruising they'll
get pretty good milage though, no doubt, and at a nice relaxed RPM. I think
the best compromise (which also seems to be agreed upon by performance
experts) for an _all around balance_ of acceleration, top end and
real-world economy, for a V8 car with automatic, is a final drive of about
3.0 (on lower compression cars) and 3.25 (on higher compression cars)
or with today's modern engines and four-speed autos, 3.42-3.73:1
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> The year of the big emissions drop is '75. The next big drop was '79.
> Reason: Catalysts. Next reason: Open element catalysts. If you want
> your '60s anything to pass '94 emissions, just tune it and put a cat on it.
Yes but they year performance COMPLETELY FELL OUT OF THE PICTURE is
also '75. Reason: Early [monolithic] cats. They strangled the engines, also
newly burdened with "economy" tuning (read: abysmally low compression
and single exhausts, extremely mild camming, and no more than one cat
per car). The only cars to retain any emblence of performance were the
440 Chrysler pursuits, with their no-longer-civillian-offered high
performance engines and dual-cat exhausts. Even they suffered a severe
performance hit, but they became able to outrun Corvettes.
Aardwolf.
dand...@digex.net
Hate to be picky, but the design started in '68, and uses the same subframe
and parts as the F-cars. The Seville was much more like the '78-'83 A-bodies.
The '76 is an interesting choice of ride, but while there was a hatchback available
(and it appears it is fairly hard to find), there was no fastback available. The
fastback ended in '74, as did the more curvatious body work. The Olds, Buick
and Pontiac forms definately have a neat look compared to the fairly boring
Novas (Hey, some like simple designs). I personnally find the best 'alternative'
body to be the '74 GTO. It had a pretty neat design, could fit a 455, had no cats,
has a certain degree of collectiability, and radially tuned suspension. The
suspension had parts stolen from the Firebird and was probably the best handling
X-car ever.
dand...@digex.net
What will they do after VZ? WA??
dand...@digex.net
Agreed. Tuning started taking the hit in '72 and kept getting worse.
The cats made after '79 weren't too bad, and not many aftermarket companies
have those high flowing cats. If I had the cash for a high flow exhaust for my
'68, I would get one with a cat so I can 'brag' that my rusty old tank is as clean
as most five year old cars...
I do have to add an engine, though that somewhat survived the emissions crunch:
Pontiac's 455. The HO had some of it's best years with the emissions equipment.
But by '76, it was also on the slide, getting only 190 or so hp. But it still outran
the Vette, and Chevy wasn't too happy about that.
dand...@digex.net
>> >
>> >Hey my Grand Am gets much better milage than that---11 in the city (and
>> >13 on the highway) ;-), my Catalina 10/12, and my Polara 440 7/10!
>>
>> All my cars have been geared numerically low. Takes lots of gas in the city
>> to get them moving... Then the one barely idles at 80.
>
>Yeah but unfortunately you'll have such a complete lack of mechanical
>advantage at higher speeds they won't do much over 100 anyway, the lower
>gearing won't be able to overcome the drag. For highway cruising they'll
>get pretty good milage though, no doubt, and at a nice relaxed RPM. I think
>the best compromise (which also seems to be agreed upon by performance
>experts) for an _all around balance_ of acceleration, top end and
>real-world economy, for a V8 car with automatic, is a final drive of about
>3.0 (on lower compression cars) and 3.25 (on higher compression cars)
>or with today's modern engines and four-speed autos, 3.42-3.73:1
Well the ones a 6, and can push 105 into the wind, 111 with the wind.
The '68 a V8, but has lower gears. However, Pontiac engines have a lot
more grunt at the low end, so it can probably hit 120. However, it's a convertable
and I would be afraid of the roof getting beat up. Besides, this is New Jersey...
Not too many places where you can do 100+ and not get caught. ;-)
I gotta move to Montana, where I enjoy the commute.
Lars
Not unless you are driving in reverse?
Lars
ken_payne
dand...@digex.net wrote:
>In <323A09...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
>>dand...@digex.net wrote:
>>>
>>> In <3238F5...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:
>>> >Gene Slater wrote:
>>> >> > > I'm sure it has to do with the reason a 1961 Impala and a 1993 Grand Am
>>> >> > > both weigh 3700 pounds:
>>> >
>>> >News flash--1993 Grand Ams are about 1000lbs lighter than that, they
>>> >run about 2850 or so as I recall.
>>>
>>> The '96 Gran Am SE is 2935. However, a Grand Prix is 3500.
>>>
>>> I can't find a source, but I'm sure the '61 Impala didn't weight 3700 pounds, either.
>>> But, the point is very valid. My Tempest is about 3000 pounds, but is the same
>>> size as a Mark VIII, which weights 3750.
>>
>>Nope, you're right, the Impala weighed 3600lbs.
>>But the increase in weight is due to all sorts of standard equipment not
>>availble back then. Put in a bunch of equivalent options on an Impala and
>>I'm sure you'd see it easilly hit 4000bs.
>
>You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
>big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
>3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
>was over 4500 lbs.
>
My 1967 Ford F100 pickup weighs 4700 lbs, that's *without* AC and no
power steering. Some Galaxies also weighed more than 4500 lbs. What
you have to consider is that a big block v8 weighs over 650 lbs by
itself!
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Do *not* add my address to any mailing list without my written |
| permission. If you wish to correspond (non-commercial only) |
| please send email to: pa...@platinum.com. Due to a bug in my |
| mailer any junk email received will automatically subscribe the |
| sender to the majodomo lists. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Spelling flames are lame. Cole's Law: Thinly Sliced Cabbage |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Lloyd R. Parker
Lawrence Artz (ar...@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
:
: Yes, but the whole lineup of cars grew in size. The GM X-Body (which is
: the Nova class) went from a wheelbase of 110 inches to 111 inches. The
: Chevelle (an intermediate) which had a 119 inch wheelbase got larger (or
: at least had that appearance, especially from 1973 to 1977). The
: Impala/BelAir/Bisacyne/Caprice models got HUGE until its drastic
: downsizing in 1977.
The A was never 119. That was the B -- the full-size. The A was 115"
pre-68 and then went to 2 wheelbases -- 112" (I think) for the 2-doors
and 116" for the 4-doors.
Dennis Jensen
In article <51hvqi$1...@netra.oscs.montana.edu>,
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
>>>interesting conversation going on here, true fwd is somewhat lighter,
>>>but most importantly of all its cheaper to mfgr, in the long run,
>>>slightly more fuel effecient,
>
>Actually the big reason for using FWD as far as weight is concerned is the
fact
>that they tend to have *much* less rotating mass, which has more effect on
the
>perf, and econ than just weighing the components on a scale. The RWD car
tends
>to have a large diameter shaft that uses much more energy to accelerate than
a
>comparable mass used in the CV shafts (this is a vague description. If you
want
>to know the details see a physics book concering mass, moment, and inertia)
>
Much more energy? Angular momentum for rotating objects is:
L= I*w
where L is angular momentum
I is the moment of inertia
w is angular velocity in radians/sec.
I for a solid disc(shaft) = 0.5 MR^2
where M is the mass of the disc(shaft)
R is the radius of the shaft
I for a hollow shaft = 0.5M(R+r)^2
where R is the outside diameter and r is the inside diameter of the shaft.
Assume the driveshaft has an inside radius of 4.5cm and an outside radius of
5cm. Also assume that the driveshaft has a mass of 5kg. Assume that the wheels
and tyres are a solid disc with a mass of 15kg, and a radis of 32cm. Assume
the car has a mass of 1500kg, and is accelerating from rest to 30mph (3.23
diff) = 1000rpm of driveshaft = 310rpm of wheels.
All momentums are initially 0. The momentum of the car at 30 mph (50km/h) is
mv=1500*13.9 = 20850kgm/s.
For the driveshaft, L = 0.5*5*(0.45+.05)^2*6283 = 142kgm/s.
For the wheels, L= 0.5*15*(.32)^2*1945 = 1494kgm/s. Actually, you shoud double
this to take account for all four wheels, which gives 5974kgm/s. I think that
I have made the point that the angular momentum of the driveshaft is almost
trivially insignificant when taken in the entirety of other momentums
involved.
The driveshfts angular momentum contributes only 0.5% of the total momentum in
this example, and that would be the maximum comparive loss WRT FWD (I have
neglected transmission angular momentum loss, halfshaft angular momentum
losses, clutch, flywheel, brake discs/drums etc.
Hope this helps.
Dennis
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> Novas (Hey, some like simple designs). I personnally find the best 'alternative'
> body to be the '74 GTO. It had a pretty neat design, could fit a 455, had no cats,
> has a certain degree of collectiability, and radially tuned suspension. The
> suspension had parts stolen from the Firebird and was probably the best handling
> X-car ever.
I think it looks too much like a Nova, but that's subjective. No factory 455
either. ;-) Didn't know fastbacks ended in '74, guess it's a sedan or
nothing then. The police package cars also use F-car suspension
components, among others. They also became available starting in '74.
The Seville was not an X-body but still a close relative (was it not the first
"K" body?) It was a unit-body car. Also similar (in size/layout) but not
related were the fullsize Holden (GM-Australia) cars, HQ/HJ/HX/HZ/WB
series, 1971-'84. They were unit-bodies with front subframes, and
could also have 5-liter (Holden) or 5.7 liter (Chevy) V8's.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
dand...@digex.net wrote:
> I do have to add an engine, though that somewhat survived the emissions crunch:
> Pontiac's 455. The HO had some of it's best years with the emissions equipment.
> But by '76, it was also on the slide, getting only 190 or so hp. But it still outran
> the Vette, and Chevy wasn't too happy about that.
Yep it too caved in '75, but in '73-'74 it was in its best form ever with
310 VERY underrated net horses, as the 455 SD.
Aardwolf.
dand...@digex.net
In <52e989$b...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>, Lawrence Artz <ar...@ll.mit.edu> writes:
>dand...@digex.net wrote:
>As a matter of fact, the Chevy was the only X-car
>>to be renamed in '79/'80, the Phoenix, Skylark and Omega nameplates were all
>>maintained for the new FWD cars. Just be glad Chevy didn't disgrace the
>>Chevy II name by calling it the Chevy III ;-), like they disgraced the Nova name
>>in '86.
>>
> What got me was seeing an ALLDATA putting out a bulletin referencing to
>the 1988 Chevy II (referring to the Toyota "Nova"). I still see and still
>get all riled up when I see parts listings for "Chevy II: 1986-1988" As
>far as I'm concerned, the last Nova ever made was made in in early 1979.
>No more Novas were ever made after that. The Toyotas are not even close.
I also was irked by the reuse of the name LeMans. The jury is still out on the
new Malibu. At least it's domestic. I thought it might have been neat if GM
named the 4-door Malibu and the 2-door Chevelle, since the Monte Carlo and
Impala naming seemed to go well.
Lloyd R. Parker
dand...@digex.net wrote:
:
: I also was irked by the reuse of the name LeMans. The jury is still out on the
: new Malibu. At least it's domestic. I thought it might have been neat if GM
: named the 4-door Malibu and the 2-door Chevelle, since the Monte Carlo and
: Impala naming seemed to go well.
Some reuses of names I hated:
Dodge Charger (the Omni-based one)
Dodge Challenger (the Mitsubishi import)
Plymouth Volare Road Runner
Pontiac Ventura GTO
Ford Mustang II
Mercury Cougar sedans and wagons
Victor Smith
On 26 Sep 1996 15:38:25 GMT, Lawrence Artz <ar...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>Yes, but the whole lineup of cars grew in size. The GM X-Body (which is
>the Nova class) went from a wheelbase of 110 inches to 111 inches. The
>Chevelle (an intermediate) which had a 119 inch wheelbase got larger (or
>at least had that appearance, especially from 1973 to 1977). The
>Impala/BelAir/Bisacyne/Caprice models got HUGE until its drastic
>downsizing in 1977.
>
I picked up a '76 Impala in 1981, and it was one nice car. I had burned a
valve in my '71 Nova, and un-retired my '66 Ford PU.
I quickly tired of driving that stick truck on a long commute, and with
four kids all six of us wouldn't fit in the cab safely, though that truck
had a huge cab. Funny, Ford downsized their truck cabs in '67, and Chevy
their Caprices in '77. I wasn't paying any attention when I bought my
truck, but consciously went after the '76 Chevy as opposed to the downsized
years. BTW, I never have bought a new car.
Anyway, a guy I worked with pointed out an ad in a local paper, and said
he'd drive me over at lunch.
We drove to Barrington, a horsey burb, and the lady who answered the door
said the garage was open, gave me the keys, and I went to have a look.
The garage was dark, but the car didn't look too bad. I opened the
overhead door, and with that light saw the car was speckled with rust.
Big red patches along the sides, sharply contrasting with the medium
blue color of the car.
I opened the driver's door, and the interior was clean as a whistle. I
went to look in the back, but both back doors were rusted shut.
I was having bad vibes about this car, but I started it up and that 350
purred real nice. I took it out a bit and the trans and suspension were
fine. I crawled under it and saw the cat was gone and somebody had
installed a plumbers nightmare of tube and stuff, with all kinds of goofy
clamps.
The ad said $1200 OBO, and given the work I'd have to do up-front, I didn't
feel bad about offering $800. The woman shouted to her husband, who was in
the shower 'he says he'll pay $800!', and he instantly shouted back, 'Take
it!'. So I give her $800.00, and she signs the title to me.
I told my workmate to follow me back to work, just in case, and I had to
stop for gas, as the needle was on empty. I get the tank about 1/2 full
(12gals?), and gas starts running over my feet! The damn gas tank was
full of holes at the seam.
Anyway, I call my wife, tell her I'll be bringing a 'new' car home, and
we'll pick up the truck later. My ride home was fine until I got near my
house, where the streets are pretty bumpy. As I turned the corner to
the street where my house is, the muffler dropped, and started dragging.
I could see my wife in the front yard, shooting the breeze with a neighbor,
and eagerly awaiting my arrival, no doubt. Thinking of my leaking gas tank
and sparking muffler, I slowed down to a crawl, while she watched me slowly
clanking toward her. She told me later that she was praying it wasn't me
in that car. As I pulled up to park by the curb, she stood there with a
look of horror on her face, and I swear to god, when I put it in park the
whole exhaust system fell to the ground with a clatter. The first thing
she said was 'you paid $800 for THIS?' I couldn't answer, as I was
laughing so hard.
I popped the panels on the back doors, lubricated the mechanisms, and never
had another problem with them. The next day I picked up a like-new gas
tank at the boneyard for $35. I spent a couple hours knocking off the rust
(all surface), and painting. I got a pretty good match, but for $800, a
car can appear a blotchy. The trunk of this car had oats all through it,
and I believe this car had always been parked in a dank garage or under
some trees on a horse farm. Under the hood, almost every surface was
bright orange. I have never seen a car with so much surface rust.
I had a Meineke shop fit one good pipe in place of the five or so angles
somebody had jury rigged. I think I paid him $50.
So I drove this car until '87, when my 5th kid arrived, and I needed a van.
I put $500 in it for a trans job in '85, and a couple heater motors. Yeah,
this is one where you have to pull the fender well to get at the heater
motor. The car never failed me, but the door hardware was crap, and for
the last 2 years a piece of oak baluster attached to lamp wire served as
the outside driver's door handle.
I picked up a '78 Chevy Beaueville van to haul the family (and anything
else). Interesting enough, when I had that big van and the Caprice parked
side by side in my garage, I was amazed to see the Caprice was a good
foot longer than the van!
Aardwolf, if you're out there, it might interest you to know this may have
been a 'police package' car. It had a spotlight (had some fun with this),
and you could see where a light bar had been clamped on. Since I never
had to repair anything but the trans on this car, I don't know about its
specs, although the trans cost more to repair than I expected.
My wife didn't like the spot, as we were occasionally spot lighted by real
cops, who would then seem embarrassed to have mistaken our family for
a carload of fellow cops. Besides that, sometimes other cars would be
leery about us until they got a close look.
--Vic
The Connell
Lawrence Artz wrote:
<copious snipping>
> Yes, but the whole lineup of cars grew in size. The GM X-Body (which is
> the Nova class) went from a wheelbase of 110 inches to 111 inches. The
> Chevelle (an intermediate) which had a 119 inch wheelbase got larger (or
> at least had that appearance, especially from 1973 to 1977). The
> Impala/BelAir/Bisacyne/Caprice models got HUGE until its drastic
> downsizing in 1977.
Excuse me i'f I'm wrong, but I believe the chevelle had a 115 in wb
until '68, when it shrank to 112 for the coupes and went up to 116 for
the four-doors, wagons and the el camino. And yes, the wheelbase stayed
the same from 1968-1977 for the chevelle, but the overall weight went
from about 3200 to almost 4000. The full size cars (Impala, Caprice,
Bel Air) used a 119 wb thru the '60s, then went to 121 in '72.
Aardwolf
Victor Smith wrote:
> Aardwolf, if you're out there, it might interest you to know this may have
> been a 'police package' car. It had a spotlight (had some fun with this),
> and you could see where a light bar had been clamped on. Since I never
> had to repair anything but the trans on this car, I don't know about its
> specs, although the trans cost more to repair than I expected.
> My wife didn't like the spot, as we were occasionally spot lighted by real
> cops, who would then seem embarrassed to have mistaken our family for
> a carload of fellow cops. Besides that, sometimes other cars would be
> leery about us until they got a close look.
>
> --Vic
Huh--a 350 Impala? Well I suppose, especially if it was from a city dept,
not all had 454's. Probably it was if it had a spot (and was blue and had a
light bar at one time). I can't see why anyone would put one on otherwise.
A good way to tell yould have been if it had a sway bar under the rear axle,
or perhaps a shrouded 7-blade clutch-drive fan (especially if it didn't
have A/C), or an auxiliary transmission fluid or engine oil cooler. How
did it handle?
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Well seein' as that's about 15 years away, the'll probably develop a
successor to the Commodore by then. Failing that I dunno. Change the
designation arbitrarilly maybe as on the HZ-WB Statesman (even if that
was pretty much a complete facelift)?
Ask them :-)
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Lawrence Artz wrote:
> >from about 3200 to almost 4000. The full size cars (Impala, Caprice,
> >Bel Air) used a 119 wb thru the '60s, then went to 121 in '72.
>
> mag. The GM Mid-size car are 115 inches. It is the GM full-size cars that
> used the 119 inch wb. Chevy II to 67 is 110 inches.
But in 1971 Pontiac went to 123 inches and 126 for the upscale models.
Then from '73-'76 they standardised at 124". I think the other B-bodies
except for Chevy did this too, though they may have only used the longer
wheelbase (for sedans anyhow) in '71-'72.
Aardwolf.
Tony Esporma
Rex wrote:
>
> gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
> >
> > >You want to check out some scarry automobile weights, then check out those
> > >big Mercedes and full size pick ups. They don't look like it, but some approach
> > >3 tons. Not counting limos and hearses, I doubt any '50's or '60s cars or pickups
> > >was over 4500 lbs.
> >
> > around 5500lbs! No wonder they get such horrible fuel econ. As far as cars from
> > the 60's go though, take a look at a 69 Buick Electra, they weighed a good 5000
> > lb!
>
> Hmmmm...and your point?
>
> Remember, not all of us want to cramp our 6'2" frames into a little
> rattletrap beercan of a Datsun/Toyota/Honda and listen to the
> little sewing machine whine at freeway speeds. (And, yes, I have
> driven/ridden in enough of them to know what I am talking about.)
>
> Personally, I love my '96 F250 supercab longbed 4x4...all 5200 lbs
> of it (plus shell, of course). It's got room for three up
> front, a whole back seat for the dog, you can carry a house full
> of stuff, and you can do it all in comfort.
>
> And, for the most part, the little cars give you a respectful
> distance.
>
BFD dude! Some of us in little trucks don't think much about
yahoos like you in oversized house moving conveyances with as
much road feel as a Kenworth truck driven under the influence
of hallucinogens.
In fact, some of us who don't need to move the house, won't yield
to rednecks like you who think own the frickin' road because their
truck is as big as _my_ you know what! Some of us in little cars
can control them to within the inch and will make your life miserable
on any kind of road.
I've had had road encounters with your kind and, oh boy!, there are
some truck owners out there that have learnt their lesson in
humilility and hopefully are behaving themselves with a bit more
civility to their fellow drivers.
Lets see your 5200lbs/270 bhp < 2700lbs/170 bhp. Plus your
top speed and acceleration past 20 mph is pitiful compared with
my Japanese mobile.... Not to mention the fact I can brake on a
dime, err.. 11 Yen, and actually have experienced the racing line
in my little car.
One of these days, Congress will wake up and slap a gas guzzler tax
to trucks and SUVs used as personal transportation. I'll be
laughing all the way to my stockbroker with the money I save on gas.
have a nice day :-P
tony
Dennis Jensen
We did that with the Falcon. From 1960-88 all models were prefaced by an X.
Now we are up to the EL (the EA appeared in 1988).
Dennis
Brandon Monnig
Distribution:
Tony Esporma (antonio...@jpl.nasa.gov) said:
: Rex wrote:
: >
: > Hmmmm...and your point?
: >
: > Personally, I love my '96 F250 supercab longbed 4x4...all 5200 lbs
Rex, do us all a favor. Put it in 4 low, and run this "sumbitch" over!
Let's make him and his Ho-Chi Minh (?) mobile be as one forever!
While the Ford SuperCabs are cool, I am still a Chev man. Although a
Crew Cab Ram could change my mind! Nothing like a set of M/T's, loud
exhaust, and clearance to pass over a house!
--
Brandon Monnig
mon...@umr.edu
school --> Rolla, MO
home --> Camdenton MO
"We talk too slow, drive too fast, we're high on life, and low on gas..."
Victor Smith
On Tue, 01 Oct 1996 01:04:11 -0600, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote:
>Victor Smith wrote:
>
>> Aardwolf, if you're out there, it might interest you to know this may have
>> been a 'police package' car. It had a spotlight (had some fun with this),
>> and you could see where a light bar had been clamped on. Since I never
>> had to repair anything but the trans on this car, I don't know about its
>> specs, although the trans cost more to repair than I expected.
>> My wife didn't like the spot, as we were occasionally spot lighted by real
>> cops, who would then seem embarrassed to have mistaken our family for
>> a carload of fellow cops. Besides that, sometimes other cars would be
>> leery about us until they got a close look.
>>
>> --Vic
>
>Huh--a 350 Impala? Well I suppose, especially if it was from a city dept,
>not all had 454's. Probably it was if it had a spot (and was blue and had a
>light bar at one time). I can't see why anyone would put one on otherwise.
>A good way to tell yould have been if it had a sway bar under the rear axle,
>or perhaps a shrouded 7-blade clutch-drive fan (especially if it didn't
>have A/C), or an auxiliary transmission fluid or engine oil cooler. How
>did it handle?
>
>Aardwolf.
Glad you asked how my '76 Impala handled.
Very well indeed. Nicely gliding on the straights, and yet retaining a
feel of the pavement. The road was perfectly transmitted through the
steering and suspension, providing excellent feedback without being
obnoxious.
The steering action had an exquisite balance of assist and resist,
and when in the twisties, imbued a feeling of partnership and
cooperation.
Yes, driving the Impala in the twisties was always reminiscent of the
surprising and delicious pleasure found when dancing with an attractive
and agile partner, to a song known well by both.
In high speed cornering the rear did not kick out unduly, and was easily
corrected via the responsive steering or, if need be, the equally
responsive throttle.
Torque, of course, was readily available in the Impala - even with the puny
350 and its antiquated 4-barrel carburetor - and often used to good effect
in roaring out of turns and hill climbing when in the twisties.
Braking, while not quite to M3 standards, could tighten your seatbelt quite
well, thank you.
Handling would deteriorate somewhat, however, when the Caprice was
loaded with a full complement of 6 adults and 400 pounds of luggage.
In this configuration the car would tend to understeer a bit during high
speed cornering, exhibit a bit of body lean in the tighter sweepers when
exceeding 80mph, and suffer a touch of brake fade under repeated panic
stops from 80mph.
Hope this answers your question about handling.
The car did not have a sway bar under the rear axle. It did have A/C, but
not a seven-bladed fan. It did not have auxiliary coolers. Probably
wasn't the police package, eh? Damn.
--Vic
John Weir
Brandon Monnig (mon...@saucer.cc.umr.edu) wrote:
: Distribution:
: Tony Esporma (antonio...@jpl.nasa.gov) said:
: : I've had had road encounters with your kind and, oh boy!, there are
: : some truck owners out there that have learnt their lesson in
: : humilility and hopefully are behaving themselves with a bit more
: : civility to their fellow drivers.
: : Lets see your 5200lbs/270 bhp < 2700lbs/170 bhp. Plus your
: : top speed and acceleration past 20 mph is pitiful compared with
: : my Japanese mobile.... Not to mention the fact I can brake on a
: : dime, err.. 11 Yen, and actually have experienced the racing line
: : in my little car.
: : One of these days, Congress will wake up and slap a gas guzzler tax
: : to trucks and SUVs used as personal transportation. I'll be
: : laughing all the way to my stockbroker with the money I save on gas.
: : have a nice day :-P
: : tony
: Rex, do us all a favor. Put it in 4 low, and run this "sumbitch" over!
: Let's make him and his Ho-Chi Minh (?) mobile be as one forever!
: While the Ford SuperCabs are cool, I am still a Chev man. Although a
: Crew Cab Ram could change my mind! Nothing like a set of M/T's, loud
: exhaust, and clearance to pass over a house!
I don't think that the vehicle you are driving matters as much as
the courtesy employed when driving it. There are courteous truck
drivers, and well as ones that own cars.
If you are a a-hole, it doesn't matter what you drive.
Although I don't think that the truck drivers here are doing their
image any good. The "I drive a vehicle that sits taller than yours
so you will have to yield" mentality isn't one I will succumb to.
I've got a truck, and a car.
A truck in my situation, is a utility vehicle, I don't like driving it.
Give me the car anyday.
John
Timothy L. Anderson
In article d...@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu, mon...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Brandon Monnig) writes:
> Distribution:
>
> Tony Esporma (antonio...@jpl.nasa.gov) said:
> : yahoos like you in oversized house moving conveyances with as
> : much road feel as a Kenworth truck driven under the influence
> : of hallucinogens.
>
> : In fact, some of us who don't need to move the house, won't yield
> : to rednecks like you who think own the frickin' road because their
> : truck is as big as _my_ you know what! Some of us in little cars
> : can control them to within the inch and will make your life miserable
> : on any kind of road.
>
> : some truck owners out there that have learnt their lesson in
> : humilility and hopefully are behaving themselves with a bit more
> : civility to their fellow drivers.
>
> : >
> : > Personally, I love my '96 F250 supercab longbed 4x4...all 5200 lbs
> : > of it (plus shell, of course). It's got room for three up
> : > front, a whole back seat for the dog, you can carry a house full
> : > of stuff, and you can do it all in comfort.
> : >
> : > And, for the most part, the little cars give you a respectful
> : > distance.
> : >
>
>
> : tony
>
> Rex, do us all a favor. Put it in 4 low, and run this "sumbitch" over!
> Let's make him and his Ho-Chi Minh (?) mobile be as one forever!
>
> While the Ford SuperCabs are cool, I am still a Chev man. Although a
> Crew Cab Ram could change my mind! Nothing like a set of M/T's, loud
> exhaust, and clearance to pass over a house!
>
You know, I have been rednecked in my Mustang before by the 4X4 Suburban/Explorer/
(insert make here) types, and I have also had people in econo boxes try to "teach
me a lesson" by driving down the road synchronized in speed with the cars on either
side of them.
Having been on both sides of the fence, I'd just like to make one simple
observation. If people would just MOVE OVER and obey the "slower traffic
keep right" LAW, there would hardly ever be a problem. I have yielded to faster
traffic before, and I PROMISE moving over won't cost you one ounce of your
manhood.
A few years back I was driving to my hometown in Missouri, going up US 75 in
Oklahoma when I came up on a Prelude and an Omni going down the road side by
side. I pulled into the fast lane, followed the brain dead Omni for about
a mile......and they're still side by side. Then I see an 18 wheeler coming
up and I mean he is cruising about 75 and these morons are doing about 52 mph.
Now this guy may have been on the road fighting traffic for eight hours, he
might even be amped up, and common sense says he's not going to be amused at
having to slow 80,000 lbs to a crawl for somebody in an Omni who wants to
teach him a lesson. I get back out of the passing lane and back off to get
away from what is shaping up to be an ugly situation. The semi flashes his
lights, hits his horn, and the Omni STILL refuses to move. I swear, I thought
the guy in the semi was going to ram him. The drama ended when the Prelude driver
FINALLY woke up, hit the gas, and gave the semi an opening. Now come on people,
have you ever seen what is left of a car after a semi uses it for a skid plate?
Is it really worth risking your life to "teach somebody a lesson"?
As a driver of a "small" car (compared to a SUV, anyway) I have also had the
pleasure of people playing the intimidation game by "looming" in the rearview
mirror as we're going down the highway bumper to bumper. I'm sorry, but
tailgating me isn't going to speed up the cars in front of me, it's just
gonna p*ss me off.
I have a favorite off ramp that takes you from 635 West to the Tollway South
here in Dallas. The ramp basically forms 3/4 of a complete circle, smooth
concrete, decreasing radius, and marked for 25 mph. Every now and then I will
get one of these "mall terrain vehicles" glued to my bumper as I make the exit
for the tollway. Now, 50 mph around this ramp is no big deal in a Cobra, but
it is HIGH DRAMA in your typical Suburban/Explorer/Pickup/whatever. And since
Bubba has made attaching himself to my bumper his number 1 mission in life,
he's going to try to stay with me in the turn. Uh-Oh. You can almost hear
the empty beer cans rolling around inside his truck as his "mud bog specials"
howl, slither and smoke their way around the corner sounding for all the world
like a dog with hiccups baying at the moon! If I'm really lucky, the traffic
will be light on the tollway and I can use that 305 horsepower V8 to make sure
he never even gets within tailgating range again.
No real point to any of this other than maybe a message to the "large vehicle
intimidation" crowd AND to the "small car gonna teach you a lesson" crowd.
You're playing a game of one-upsmanship, just like the guys who brag that
their (insert car here) can outrun ANY (insert car here). To the latter group
I say there's ALWAYS someone faster. And to the former group, there's always
someone crazier, and you really don't want to keep trying to find him, because
when you do, somebody is going to needlessly get hurt or killed. Things get
so crazy here in Dallas it seems like every few months you read about
somebody getting shot over some kind of altercation here in traffic. Now THAT'S
really teaching someone a lesson.
Tim Anderson
1996 Cobra #3711 of 7496
1972 Mach 1 429 Police engine
Gumby
In article <530kj5$8...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>, tlan...@aud.alcatel.com writes...
>I have a favorite off ramp that takes you from 635 West to the Tollway South
>here in Dallas. The ramp basically forms 3/4 of a complete circle, smooth
>concrete, decreasing radius, and marked for 25 mph. Every now and then I will
>get one of these "mall terrain vehicles" glued to my bumper as I make the exit
>for the tollway. Now, 50 mph around this ramp is no big deal in a Cobra, but
>it is HIGH DRAMA in your typical Suburban/Explorer/Pickup/whatever. And since
>Bubba has made attaching himself to my bumper his number 1 mission in life,
>he's going to try to stay with me in the turn. Uh-Oh. You can almost hear
>the empty beer cans rolling around inside his truck as his "mud bog specials"
>howl, slither and smoke their way around the corner sounding for all the world
>like a dog with hiccups baying at the moon! If I'm really lucky, the traffic
>will be light on the tollway and I can use that 305 horsepower V8 to make sure
>he never even gets within tailgating range again.
He he. I've done the exact same thing on the exact same ramp. Tho, I
prefer the northbound Tollway to westbound 635, as there is the "merging
traffic" while you actually get your own lane. It confuses 'em big time.
And all that in my '87 200SX :-)
Marc