It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
- Last Active
@stever said: (I suspect the '69 C20 was the main reason people recognized you - there's probably a running bet on when it'll finally die. Sort of like the ice classic - when will it go out).
I still get that, occasionally, when I drive my Granddad's old '85 Silverado, which has been in the family since it was new, and spent most of its life in the area. The only exception was from around 1997-2002...Grandmom gave it to my Mom in Southern MD, and then she sold it to me.
I'll have people say to me "Is that Jesse's truck", or "Isn't that your Grandfather's truck". Although, it's happening less and less, as Granddad died in 1990. So most of the people who would remember him have either passed on, themselves, or moved away. But, because we kept the truck for so long, for awhile, I think people thought Granddad was still alive.
Imidazol, you nailed it...just plugged in the code reader. P0446! I tried looking it up online, looks like it could be the evaporative canister, or a fuel pressure sensor.
Well, the 1960 Valiant was a pretty popular car. It came in well behind the Falcon, but only about 60K units behind the Corvair. A pretty good showing, considering that Chrysler lacked the capacity of Ford or GM. Style-wise, I'd consider the Valiant to actually be pretty radical, compared to the Corvair or the Falcon, especially. The Corvair was radical in its engineering, but other than the grille-less front-end, it was rather plain. As for "plain", well you could almost go to Google, type in the word "plain", hit "I'm feeling lucky", and get a pic of a 1960 Falcon! ;)
I think the problem back then is that GM reacted, and not in a good way, to the 1957 Mopars once the designs got leaked. And the end result was the 1959 GM cars. Meanwhile, Mopar countered by reacting to the '59 GM cars, and their result was what we saw from Mopar around '60-61!
Actually, that overly styled, "European" look of the 1960 Valiant sort of worked. But it didn't apply as well to the larger cars, like the '62 Plymouth/Dodge, or the '63-64 Chrysler. I have to admit though, that I think the '62 Dodge Dart/Polara models are kind of cool, in an offbeat sort of way. That turbine-inspired styling is at least interesting on them, whereas I think the '62 Plymouth is just ugly.
It must have been hard as hell to sell a standard sized '62 Plymouth, when they were new. The Chevy that year was downright gorgeous, and the Ford is handsome, in a more conservative sort of way. And by then, they were even facing competition from within, as the Dart lineup pretty much matched the Plymouth lineup. It started off as Seneca/Pioneer/Phoenix against Savoy/Belvedere/Fury, but by '62 I think they went with Dart/Dart 330/Dart 440.
I guess drivetrains were probably a good selling point for the Mopars though, as the 225 slant six, mated with a 3-speed Torqueflite, were more than a match for the 6-cyl/speed combos that Ford and Chevy were pushing. And in V-8's, with Mopar you jumped straight to a 318, while the others were messing around with stuff like the 283 and 292. So the Plymouth probably drove better, accelerated better, and got a bit better economy than it s direct GM and Ford counterparts. If only you could put a paper bag over it! B)
My 2000 Park Avenue finally hit a milestone yesterday...
And, the check engine light came on late last week. I guess the old adage rings true..."GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all!" B)
I think those averages are weighted averages, as well, rather than just a numerical average, so to get to 35 mpg is really impressive.. For example, the average of 10 and 20 is 15 (30/2) but the weighted average of 10 mpg and 20 mpg is actually 13.3 mpg. For instance, if you drove 200 miles on a tank of gas, and 100 miles of it was local driving getting 10 mpg, and 100 miles was a trip getting 20 mpg, you would have used 15 gallons total, in those 200 miles, or 13.33... mpg total