Your Mom's '68 sounds like a much-improved version of a '64 Le Mans I had briefly, with 215 CID six (Pontiac-only version of the Chevy six), 2-speed AT and radials but no handling package, posi or discs.
Still a very well balanced car in the hills, with minimal understeer and adequate torque. Sold it to some friends who still have it and love it almost twenty years later.
Even the GTO was a decent handler with the handling package, maybe a $6 option but not something dealers usually ordered. Kind of a shame because it made a big difference in handling with hardly any difference in ride quality.
I would love to see an engine that you don't need an electrical engineering degree to do a tune up on!! How many time have I seen or have had a car in the dealer that nothing was wrong with because the computer doesn't have a code set. Just to find out it was something simple like a coil or ignition module. Simple is better, flat out. Four vacuum lines is all that should be on an engine any ways, one for the brake booster, one for the PCV valve, one for the trans modulator, and one for the distributor advance.
I personally want all that electrical "crap" on my engine. My Ford has a 280 cubic inch V-8 (they say it's 281, but it's not), that cranks out 200 horsepower, gets 27 mpg highway, and is much cleaner than any engine without all the crap. The newest and best 4.6's are getting 320 hp! That's Chevy 350 territory! I can drive across the mountians without having to stop and adjust the carburetor (it has no carburetor), a tuneup only involves new plugs and wires, and not disassembling the distributor (it has no distributor), and while the occasional Check Engine light is annoying, the computer also knows when something serious is wrong, and can shut the car down before you damage something. I find my '95 T-Bird to be a lot easier to work on than my old 78 Grand Marquis, and gets more power out of a smaller engine, using less gas, thanks in no small part to computer controlled fuel injection and ignition. The fuel injectors deliver just the right amount of fuel right where it's needed, reducing waste, and the DIS ignition can time the ignition much more accurately than a mechanical vacuum advance can. In fact, I wish it were easier to put some of the computer controls on older engines.
My Intrepid's got about 48,000 miles on it now, and the only thing I've done under the hood is replace the air filter and pcv valve. Oh, and have the tranny serviced.
There's just not that much that needs to be adjusted. In all fairness though, there's really not much to tuning up something like my '68 Dart. I had a set of points last 40,000 miles, once. But then the next set lasted about 12,000. At the same time, though, the Dart's lucky to get 17 mpg on the highway. If the Intrepid EVER did that bad, I would know there was something wrong with it!
Of course, let's fast forward enough years to where the Intrepid is the same age and mileage as my Dart. At that point, all that electrical stuff is definitely going to count against it! It's one thing to replace the points, condensor, cap, rotor, plugs, and wires on a Dart (and for good measure, throw in the ballast resistor). Something else entirely to have some problem that the dealer, after multiple visits, can never diagnose or fix correctly.
First off, you couldn't run 11:1 on 87 octane no matter what you did. Second, the current day engines are making more horsepower with smaller engines with lower compression AND they're doing it more efficiently. So trying to revive 11:1 comp. ratios is assinine. Take the Camaro and Mustang for example...325bhp on the Camaro and 320bhp on the Mustang(Cobra) and yet these cars enter "tire spin fest" at 3/4 throttle. So why add gobs more power if it can't be put to the ground?
What I meant was that now a days the dealers rely on the computer to tell them everything and the simple stuff is overlooked, and never repaired properly. Unless you can 100% diagnose a computer controlled car you can throw parts at it all day long and not find the problem. My '91 Dodge van for example had a bad coil, dealer said nothing was wrong and that the problem was a plugged cat, replaced the entire exhaust system, $350, still the same thing, next it was a clogged injector and a leaking injector, replaced 2 injectors, $200. Still not running right take it back again, it was a bad o2 sensor, NOT!!! I gave up on the dealer and took it to a small shop, the guy found the bad ignition coil in 10 minutes, total cost $40! All the pain and suffering me and my wallet had to go through because somebody relied to much on the computer to point out a simple problem. 20 years ago the coil would have been suspect immediately, now if it doesn't set a code or trigger a light, everything must be fine, and you are just imagining being stuck on the side of the road.
I realize the vast improvements that are being made and the fuel economy and horsepower gains that electronics bring with them, but in the long run the mechanics get lazy or forget the basics.
In my personal opinion simple is ALWAYS better. I would even go as far as to say give me an engine with fuel injection that only has the essentials. Not with 50,000 sensors, and 200 miles of wires, just the basics. I still say my favorite thing to see under the hood is the engine, not a bundle of wires, just the engine and a few vacuum lines, what a beautiful site to see!!!
Simple is most certainly not always better. Here's an example using airlines. Track down a third-world nation still using old Comets (there has to be one somewhere) for passenger travel. Fly in one. Come home, book a 777. Guess which one is harder to repair? Guess which one I'd rather ride in? Same with cars, the problem isn't with the technology of the car itself, it's with lazy mechanics. Hell, if I get bored enough to access my car's CPU myself, I might do all my own repairs...(j/k, although I'm sure I could get at the CPU)
Simpler isn't always better...often it is not...IF we are talking about the areas of efficiency, safety perhaps, ease of use.
But economically, simpler might be better, also for conservation /recycling purposes (perhaps) or in very difficult situations (would you rather try to fix a '65 Plymouth in the middle of the desert or a 2001 Porsche?)
Certainly if you were a person on a budget and very handy with tools, you could push around an old 60s cars and keep it running for a whole lot cheaper than you could a new-ish car out of warranty.
Some of the devices on modern cars are brilliant, some are rather foolish extravangances.
Extravagance: Power windows (though it wouldn't suprise me if standardizing on power isn't cheaper) The whole cup holder thing (why does anyone even care) Anti-lock (oh boy, flame away, I'll bet that stuff's hard to fix in ten years though) Power steering in small cars (Miata for example) Power antennae Hyper-complex automatic transmissions (I'd rather eat the mpg and have a T-400 in a pickup) That stupid transmission lockout in Z/28s and Corvettes. Road hugging weight. The whole SUV thing. Lack of engine access. (Camaro for example, extravagant due to styling constraints). + what I think is the worst sin, whole systems approaches to cars...as the different subsystems become more intertwined (engine -> transmission is an obvious example), the difficulties in debugging or modifying some of this stuff is going to get horrendous.
Brilliance: Timed fuel injection The catalytic converter (requires #1) More common use of four wheel disks Stiffer chassis (significantly so) Modern spark managment systems (coil / cylinder) 6 speed manual trans overdrive auto trans Modern tires (admittedly this can be retrofitted) Whatever metallurgy magic that is resulting in 200k+ mile engines Four wheel drive cars (that new WRX looks pretty amazing) Air bags (maybe, I don't have a strong opinion on that) Much more crash worthy (as far as the humans inside are concerned).
Hmmm, I'm convinced, bring over that new Holden LS1 / 6 speed car and I might even give a darn about new cars.
What I am talking about here is engine/drivetrain simplicity, not 777 vs. Comet! Besides which, planes crash no matter how old/simple they are. Look at the old open cockpit bi-planes, you see them at the air shows all the time, how many drop out of the sky?! In either event the complexity of a plane is more to do with safety than just keeping it in the air, how many REAL advancements have been made in the jet engine? I can think of a few that need to be done, like emisions, and noise. We are talking apples and oranges here.
Back to the topic!! I would also like to see steel bumpers on cars, the urethane, painted bumpers really lack the style and flash the older cars had.
I miss them, too. In fact, last night I got a reminder of just how sturdy they could be. I have a friend who drives a '95 Grand Marquis that's going into the shop. Well, we dropped his car off last night and I was going to let him borrow my old '89 Gran Fury, that I kept around as a spare car after I bought my new one. Well, as we pulled up into the parking lot at my condo, I let the car roll all the way forward until it whacked the wooden posts as the end of the parking lot. Our parking lot is a really tight squeeze, and if I didn't put the car in all the way, it would make it hard to get into somebody's parking space off to the side.
But my friend just hollered at me "ARE YOU CRAZY!?", when I hit them. But I figured hey, they're bulky 5 mph bumpers, it's not going to do anything to them. But that's something I would never dream of doing with a newer car, like my Intrepid. In fact, I have accidentally bumped them a few times with that car, and have the marks to show it! My friend looked at me like I was a psycho when I told him that I used to bump those wooden posts all the time with the old Plymouth...that was my way of knowing that I was all the way in the parking spot!
Yeah, today's cars look so monchrome, bland, and sometimes-cheap. You have to get a truck to get a chrome bumper anymore, and those are few. I think a chrome bumper and a little more chrome trim would make any of today's cars look much better. But then, I grew up in the 50s. In those days, no chrome and ots of black rubber meant cheap, cheap, cheap. Today, that's the norm.
The Lincoln LS with base suspension comes with chrome trim on the front and rear bumpers that I think really sets the car off. I get lots of admiring looks but then I usually do even when I'm not in my car ;-).
I think the thinking behind the extra chrome is that if you're unhip enough to not want 17" wheels and an ice-wagon ride you're probably unhip enough to like chrome.
Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from. I just am very comfortable with technology and I'm perfectly happy to see it invading almost everything. I'm not the one cursing the computer when it won't print, I'm the only who's already halfway through fixing it. From a simple to repair standpoint, it really does fixate on how the people repairing it were trained. An old-school mechanic is going to be utterly lost on a modern car, which is why 'technicians' need to be trained far better today. Meanwhile, I'll take as much ABS and Traction/Stability control as you can offer, especially if I can turn it off if I feel the need to get back to the basics. The only thing I'm not chipper about is night vision. I've used a night vision scope many a time, and while they're insanely effective at walking speeds, I do not want someone driving with just that. I can't really explain why, but it causes your eyes to "refresh" slower than normal. Quick reactions just aren't as quick as they normally are.
I don't complain about that kinda stuff either, I just have a problem with a car being to complex to fix it. I think that it is good for the environment that we have the emissions controls and the like, all brought about by the computer. At the same time those of us who like to get elbow deep in the engine bay can't do that any more, the ability to self diagnose our own cars is gone. You have spend $300-$3000 on computer software and equipment to "watch" your car do it's thing to look for the mess up, you have to take it in, resulting in what used to be a simple on the side of the road fix turning into a bank account draining experience, and the loss of your car for at least 1 day, maybe more depending on the shop you take it to. You can buy a code scanner, but those only work if you have a trouble code, unmonitored systems can fail and the scanner is rendered useless! Another problem I have is finding a GOOD shop that I can trust with my truck, I have been shafted many times by shops, including the dealer. I now have a new truck with a 100k mile warranty, so now the issue is finding a good dealer service department.
...until a car gets old. Then simpler is better, I think. The less that can go wrong the better. Computers are fine and dandy but let's face it...the one on my desk at work sometimes crashes several times a day! I don't mind buying a new car that's technology-laden, as long as it's reliable. I just probably wouldn't trust it once it's 10 years old!
One thing I've always wondered...how reliable was the fuel injection system they used on Chevys and Pontiac Bonnevilles back in '57? I know that Chrysler tried fuel injection as an option in their DeSoto Adventurers and Chrysler 300D's for '58, but it was so unreliable that every single example was returned to the dealership and re-fitted with dual-quads. I think it was actually some form of electronic fuel injection as well, supplied by Bendix?
The fuel injection works okay, but isn't very sophisticated and driveability can be an issue. Still, it is a very valuable option on the GM cars because it is rare and is also part of a performance package.
Ah yes, but the processors used in your computer, and the operating systems/instruction sets for them are very, very different from the ones in your car. I've yet to hear of a CPU in a car that wasn't RISC, and if there is one I would be astounded. RISC-based systems are very stable.
Besides, my computer has currently... Windows 98 Uptime: 2wks 6days 12hrs 26mins 14secs
Well an abbreviation really... I was responding to >>>> Ah yes, but the processors used in your computer, and the operating systems/instruction sets for them are very, very different from the ones in your car. I've yet to hear of a CPU in a car that wasn't RISC, and if there is one I would be astounded. RISC-based systems are very stable. >>>> Here's the deal (Classics Illustrated version).
CISC - Complex Instruction Set Computer RISC - Reduced Instruction Set Computer
Processors (like the Pentium in an IBM PC) read a stream of numbers which tell it what to do (add two numbers together for instance). One strategy, in an attempt to make processors faster, is to simplify the set of different instructions, make them the same size, and use up space on the chip for internal storage of the program (which can be accessed faster). In truth, the microprocessors out there display both philosophies and are changed over time to suit the types of programs and programming languages people tend to write (adding graphics oriented features, for instance). CISC is the concept of a whole bunch of specialized instructions for the computer, RISC is the concept of a simpler set being executed at a faster rate.
However, this has zip to do with system stability. Geez, at least I didn't say VLIW.
I don't know much about operating systems, but there are enough things that can cause a computer in a car to become problematic. For example, computers are succeptible to heat, but guess where most of them get put? That's right, in the engine bay! Or inside the dash, where they end up heating up anyway. I don't know if anybody does this anymore, but GM used to put them down inside the kick panel on the passenger side of their cars. I think the operative word here is "kick". That can't be good on the computer!
I've also seen some cars with computer equipment or other stuff that shouldn't be visible hanging down below the dashboard. Well, I have a size 13 foot, so it's pretty easy to snag it on some of that low-hanging junk. In fact, there's something that looks like an interface port under the dash on my Intrepid, down below the steering wheel. I'm surprised that I haven't kicked it loose yet!
The only car my family ever had that was plagued with serious computer problems was a 1982 Malibu wagon that my grandparents had. Well, I also had an '88 LeBaron that was far from perfect, as well. It had stuff failing and disabling that car that didn't even exist 20 years earlier! And it had a trip computer that would lie on a regular basis.
Still, for all my griping, I agree that computers are a good thing. But as a car ages, they will also become its downfall.
True, CISC and RISC have nothing to do with reliability on its own. But, what I meant was that cars are closed systems, and almost all closed systems use RISC processors, so the two go hand in hand. It's designed to do this, and do this well, nothing more. CISCs, aka desktop, based systems are normally the more dynamic systems that have to deal with untold combinations of programs that of course lead to unstability. I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make.
As for heat, well, how hot does your temp gauge say your car is running? Yes, computer chips are sensitive to heat, but if your car is running hot enough to damage one you already have a problem. Those things naturally run with a lot more heat than most people guess. And, if it's properly designed, it should be MORE reliable than a mechanical component. The reason? Friction and moving parts. True, it can't take as much of a good ole fashioned beating, but that's why (most) of them are nicely hidden away and protected. If I ever see any exposed circuit boards when I'm looking at a car, I can assure you I would skip over it.
RISC vs CISC / embeddeds vs desktop...actually both styles of processors exist in both environments PowerPC/Apple = RISC Sun/SPARC = RISC x86/PC = CISC (at least in terms of instruction set) 68xxx/Older Apple = CISC. In general, embedded systems tend to be reliable due to use of non exotic parts (slower clock rates for example) and (most importantly) well-tested, single purpose computer programs.
Where I think the problem in cars will erupt is the following: - Interaction between systems causing difficult to find problems (ie transmissions talking to spark control systems, convertible tops talking to A/C systems, etc.) - All the additional parts generally. - Connectors (after a zillion hot/cold cycles, this stuff gets brittle) - Mid-year changes (oh...that's a 2002 and a 1/4 rear-end speed sensor, we'll have to special order that) - Goofball electrical issues...bad grounding, noise problems - Sensor failure (#1 with a bullet)
VLIW, oh boy...in a hundred words or less... VLIW = very large instruction word
let's take an imaginary processor and write a single line of assembly language (the stuff the machine actually thinks in) for it...
add r1,r2,r3 which will add the contents of some internal memory (called a register) in r2 to the value in r3 and stick it in r1.
To the machine it might look like...
12 5 9 15 (I just invented these numbers) where:
12 = add 5 = r1 9 = r2 15 = r3
so... r1 = r2 + r3
the computer sucks this in and performs the operation, taking some amount of time to do it.
Let's say instead we have two sets of registers...
r1,r2,r3 and s1,s3,s3 and wanted to do the following...
By building one big instruction that does both *at once* we can get twice the work done (on separate chunks of memory). By adding more simultaneous instructions, more stuff can get done at the same time. This sort of thing is done in some specialized processors (Texas Instruments builds a couple, for example) and works pretty well if the software is developed with these abilities in mind. In general there's been a race between making processors faster (ie run at a higher clock speed, that's that mhz/megahertz thing that keeps coming up) vs get more done in a given number of 'ticks'.
VLIW is another thing that has popped out of IBM through the years (like RISC). Those guys really are the uberlords of new, basic computer research.
Things worth reviving on cars (besides necker knobs)...simplicity...OK.
I was just reading about the new 8-cylinder VW product (a W-8?), which seems to share tooling with the 15 degree V6. Aside from the packaging issues (ie. cram the motor in and around a transaxle in the front), I can't see much here that seems reasonable. A four valve eight (holy toledo, imagine the amount of monkey-motion crammed into that small space), it weighs over 400 pounds!! (410 I think), just a smidge less than a 302 Ford with considerably less displacement (and less horsepower). I expect any significant work on this baby will require pulling the whole drivetrain. Due to the v-angle and weird placement of cylinders, I'll bet it's more of a shaker than a traditional pushrod V-8 (so much for the 'refinement' concept).
Just a bit more ranting....why on earth would you hang a package this heavy *in front* of the transaxle (that is, in front of the front wheels)? What on earth are these guys shooting for? The front:rear weight ratio of a 428 Mustang? an Olds Toronado?
A sad thing about modern VW products, is that due to the extra poundage, the new rompin', stompin' motored cars (ie VR6 or 1800 Turbo Golfs) are hardly any quicker than a 1986 16V second generation Golf/Scirroco. Still low to mid 15's in the quarter mile.
How about individual options, instead of packages. Like if I wanted power lock w/o power windows, or a certain seat trim color. The old Caddy's you could order the car with different color piping around the edges, like a white seat with black piping. You just can't do that anymore. I understand for the seats, but other power options should be available separately. It seems like when you order a car/truck now a days you either get a stripped down nothing car, or a fully optioned luxo cruiser. What happened to the in between?!!
Unfortunately, the bean counters killed individual options. Ideally (for the car makers anyway), they would make only one model with no options at all. This is what Ford did in the early days with the T-Model, and they cranked out 15 million of the suckers and sold them for peanuts. Nowadays, you need a half a dozen different car models, at least that many SUV's three or four different trucks, and various assortments of vans. The someone like me would only want a new car in green, while my grandmother would only want it in white, and she wants the bells & whistles, and I'd rather spend my money on a V-8 than a heads up display, and it starts to get messy. Since uniformity is an easy way to keep mass production costs down, they bundle packages together that are likely to be sold together anyway, eliminating oddball option combinations that drive up per-unit costs. So the say "Hey, most of the guys who opt for the V-8 are performance minded, so lets only offer that engine with the stiffer suspension, bigger wheels, and lower rear end gears." Someone else says "Hey, the Heads Up Display is bought by people who like gadgets, so let's only offer it with night vision, a Nav system, and a built in cell phone." Both ways, the cut costs. Unfortunately, people who for some reason want a V-8, but the higher rear end, and better riding suspension get left out in the cold. And it someone never drives at night, and rarely drives more than 20 miles from there house, the Night Vision and Nav system are wastes of money. But hey, more profit for the carmakers, so why should they care?
Wow! I didn't start out planning a rant this long! Sorry!
Andre: Try kicking the distributer on one of your old cars, and see how long it lasts (or at least doesn't get way out of whack). Probably not as long as the engine control computer in the Intrepid.
I remember replacing the ignition control module in my wife's Omni (this was in the mid-80s). Piece of cake, pull a plug, undo a bolt, pop the new one in. No moving parts, just a small silver box. Much easier than screwing around with points/condensor, or whatever was the equivilant components before EI.
Whover mentioned sensors being the problem was right. I still have nightmares about the '75 Opel Manta I had. Only year of fuel injection + few sold = one nasty expensive mess to fix. i once found out there was only one engine control module for it in the entire USA, but it didn't matter, because no one knew how to fix it anyway.
Some of us here have been asking for cars with less stuff, fewer bells and whistles that add weight, cost and complexity to a car.
Well, I've had the chance to drive that kind of minimalist car and it's interesting. Not bad, not good, just interesting.
I'm renting a Geo Metro LSi because the Lincoln LS is in the shop, that's all they'll pay for and right now I can't afford to upgrade to a real car. (There's something wrong when you're leasing a $32k car and you get the same loaner you'd get if you were driving a two-year-old Mystique. Next time I'll read the fine print.)
You'll recognize the Metro if I tell you it looks like the car nine out of ten circus clowns prefer. Every car looms over it, even my wife's Infiniti G20. You're definitely at the bottom of the food chain and it's changed my perspective. I saw that new upmarket Hyundai (XG3?) and for an instant it looked mighty good, God help me.
I wouldn't say the Metro is tinny, but when you close the trunk it sounds like you're closing an empty 55-gallon drum. Opening the driver's door makes the same noise my wife's Thunderbird did after the accident shoved the fender back into the door.
There is no apparent sound deadening so you actually hear mechanical noises. Not all of them are enjoyable, and some of the clunks and groans probably shouldn't be there, but overall this is not a bad thing.
It has a three-speed automatic and I'm pretty sure it's not a Turbo 400. However, it bangs off shifts like one, which I like.
It's actually pretty quick around town and gets on the freeway with some authority. I was beginning to suspect they did this with gearing and when I tried to get it above 70 I found out I was right--it was not happy.
The steering is manual, and makes up for its truck-like heaviness by having no feel. If any of you have driven an old Mustang with manual steering--my previous benchmark for lousy steering--this is much worse.
In fact, the Metro is the 2001 version of a '61 Falcon I had years ago, a car I hated then and get nostalgic about now. Not bad in small doses, but not what I'd want as an everyday driver.
The car that aspires to be a go-kart. Or the go-kart that aspires to be a car, I forget which. Automotive transportation in its most basic form. The cheapest way to get there from here (and it shows).....
Uh, I better shut up now. Someone here might actually own a Metro!
I personally think it sucks that the only car we can get any more without the destined-to-fail-someday-in-winter power windows are tiny deathtraps. Seriously, try to find a decent sized car with a real engine without all the doodads, nearly impossible. I also don't especially like ABS, am I alone here?
never had a car with it, so I don't know what I'm missing. As for Metros, tiny and underpowered as they are, I actually have a slight degree of respect for them because I can actually fit in one! I don't know if I'd buy one if we ever got into a fuel crunch though, because they're so underpowered that I have a feeling they'd actually get worse gas mileage struggling to perform than if they'd just put a larger, less-stressed engine in there to begin with.
Power windows were once a luxury thing, but nowadays, it seems like they've designed crank windows to be such an annoyance that you're better off getting power windows just to avoid the hassle. Windows in cars are taller nowadays, and the mechanism to roll them down is much flimsier, so as a result, a window that used to take 2-3 turns of the crank to put down now takes 5, 6, or more. Plus, they always seem to put the window cranks in the most awkward of places, for me at least. Sometimes I worry about power windows failing, as well. Over on one of the Intrepid boards, it seems that power window failures are pretty common on them. I haven't had one fail yet, and have about 52K on my '00. I think the earliest my family's had a power window fail was on an '85 Chevy Silverado, when it was about 6 years old. Forget the miles, though. I had 2 fail on my Gran Fury, one around 9 years/75K miles, and the second around 10 years/100K miles.
As for stripper cars, I think the biggest car I've seen lately that you can still get pretty basic is the Malibu. I know I've seen a few of them with crank windows. But it's going to have ABS :-( I guess, if you want to go large, you can still get a base Suburban with crank windows, can't you? Might get mistaken for a construction crew truck, though!
The basic idea behind the Geo is sound, at least to me. Maybe that's why I like my wife's Infiniti G20 so much. It's small but at 6'3" I still fit in it, and it's got a lively but economical four banger. It's just a slightly bigger, much more refined and much better built version of the Geo. It doesn't sell many G20s but it sells a ton of Accords.
The only real problem I have with something that small is that I don't real safe mixing it up with Suburbans. I didn't feel that way when my daily driver was an MGB but I was younger then and there weren't as many 5000-lb. trophy trucks on the road then.
you can still get an Accord DX with NO power windows, no ABS, no power locks, manual transmission, I think air might even be optional. Probably not for long though, cuz I think hardly anyone buys the DX.
Then again, I've had a bad experience where ABS would have saved me $400 bucks. I was going a little to fast on a city street, in the left lane, when a guy 2 cars in front slows down. Me, in my youthful lack of genius, decides to change lanes rather than slow down. So does the lady in front of me, only neither of us used our turn signals, and I was going about 15 mph faster than her. I stand on my brakes, but I was changing lanes at the same time, and when the front wheels locked up, I plowed straight into the curb. Happened so quick I couldn't react to the wheels locking up (and I usually react pretty good). Ended up plowing into the side of the curb. I knew almost immeadiately the front end was way out of line, (You could look at the tires and tell!), but when I got to the shop, they did some measurement and found out I had bent a LOWER CONTROL ARM!!! How the heck do you do that? Anyway, $400 in parts and labor later, the Bird's good as new (aside from a seriously scraped up wheel), and another lesson learned, courtesy the school of hard knocks. Still, with ABS, I'd have been able to steer and brake, and miss the curb, saving my wheel, lower control arm, and pocket book. Maybe Mario Andretti can drive better without ABS, but not having it cost me. I'll take it any day of the week.
You have to know how to use ABS is the problem. Many people actually defeat ABS by the way they brake and so, in their cases, regular brakes might have been better.
...a friend of mine bought a used '95 Grand Marquis. Well, during really bad, icy period, it started making a funny noise that bothered him. He was going to drop it off at the gas station to have the mechanic check it out. Before he dropped the keys in the night deposit box though, I had him take me out, so I could hear the sound. Turns out it was the traction control and ABS making all that noise. Not that it was really noisy, but this was the first time he'd driven in bad enough weather to activate it. He didn't even know the car had ABS when he bought it!
From the way he was driving it though, he should be thankful he had ABS!
When I was learning to drive, I spent a good portion of time in a 92 Pontiac with ABS, as well as my Grand Marquis with regular brakes. I know what ABS feels like. I've deliberately engaged it a few times just to get used to it. Just stomp the pedal to the floor and steer around the obstacle. Of course, you do that in a non-abs car, you'll lock the front wheels up and plow into what you were trying to miss (Like I did).
Some parting thoughts about the stripper car some of us have been wishing for in this thread.
Today I pulled the plug on my experiment in seeing how little car I could live with. I told the service writer--nicely--that I wanted either my own car fixed and back or an upgrade from the Metro. So now I'm driving an Altima (waahoo!). Sure hope I don't put L-M out of business. You'd think so the way the service manager reacted. (I lease a $32k car from these guys and get the same level of service I got when I brought them a $14k Mystique. I guess they don't want to spoil me.)
I'm just minimalist enough (or cheap enough) to like the Metro even though it's a penalty box by modern standards. All I would ask for is a four-speed automatic...even just a locking torque converter would be a bonus. The engine starts winding around 35 and by 65 it's about to wind right out of its mounts.
I also think a plus-2 wheel/tire package would go a long way toward improving the Metro's looks, but I'd hesitate to do something that would make the manual steering even harder to use.
Remember how an MGB sounds when you start it? Doesn't the starter make kind of a dry scraping sound and barely turn the engine over? So does the Metro, which I think is a nice retro touch. I wonder if it's positive ground?
I'll never wish for less stuff on a car again. Stuff is good.
Yes, stuff is good I would rather get a fully-loaded lower model than a stripper model higher up. I want to have the best version of the car I buy that I can. Weird, but true
Comments
Still a very well balanced car in the hills, with minimal understeer and adequate torque. Sold it to some friends who still have it and love it almost twenty years later.
Even the GTO was a decent handler with the handling package, maybe a $6 option but not something dealers usually ordered. Kind of a shame because it made a big difference in handling with hardly any difference in ride quality.
"Hey, what's this "handling package" stuff. I ain't payin' no handling charge."
Time for bed, Graves.
why aren't there more aluminum engines out there today? ummm costs a pile to make.
but, would it not be fun to put such a beastly engine and put it into something little, like a civic? this could be the civic SS of my dreams.
There's just not that much that needs to be adjusted. In all fairness though, there's really not much to tuning up something like my '68 Dart. I had a set of points last 40,000 miles, once. But then the next set lasted about 12,000. At the same time, though, the Dart's lucky to get 17 mpg on the highway. If the Intrepid EVER did that bad, I would know there was something wrong with it!
Of course, let's fast forward enough years to where the Intrepid is the same age and mileage as my Dart. At that point, all that electrical stuff is definitely going to count against it! It's one thing to replace the points, condensor, cap, rotor, plugs, and wires on a Dart (and for good measure, throw in the ballast resistor). Something else entirely to have some problem that the dealer, after multiple visits, can never diagnose or fix correctly.
I realize the vast improvements that are being made and the fuel economy and horsepower gains that electronics bring with them, but in the long run the mechanics get lazy or forget the basics.
In my personal opinion simple is ALWAYS better. I would even go as far as to say give me an engine with fuel injection that only has the essentials. Not with 50,000 sensors, and 200 miles of wires, just the basics. I still say my favorite thing to see under the hood is the engine, not a bundle of wires, just the engine and a few vacuum lines, what a beautiful site to see!!!
But economically, simpler might be better, also for conservation /recycling purposes (perhaps) or in very difficult situations (would you rather try to fix a '65 Plymouth in the middle of the desert or a 2001 Porsche?)
Certainly if you were a person on a budget and very handy with tools, you could push around an old 60s cars and keep it running for a whole lot cheaper than you could a new-ish car out of warranty.
Some of the devices on modern cars are brilliant, some are rather foolish extravangances.
Power windows (though it wouldn't suprise me if standardizing on power isn't cheaper)
The whole cup holder thing (why does anyone even care)
Anti-lock (oh boy, flame away, I'll bet that stuff's hard to fix in ten years though)
Power steering in small cars (Miata for example)
Power antennae
Hyper-complex automatic transmissions (I'd rather eat the mpg and have a T-400 in a pickup)
That stupid transmission lockout in Z/28s and Corvettes.
Road hugging weight.
The whole SUV thing.
Lack of engine access. (Camaro for example, extravagant due to styling constraints).
+
what I think is the worst sin, whole systems approaches to cars...as the different subsystems become more intertwined (engine -> transmission is an obvious example), the difficulties in debugging or modifying some of this stuff is going to get horrendous.
Brilliance:
Timed fuel injection
The catalytic converter (requires #1)
More common use of four wheel disks
Stiffer chassis (significantly so)
Modern spark managment systems (coil / cylinder)
6 speed manual trans
overdrive auto trans
Modern tires (admittedly this can be retrofitted)
Whatever metallurgy magic that is resulting in 200k+ mile engines
Four wheel drive cars (that new WRX looks pretty amazing)
Air bags (maybe, I don't have a strong opinion on that)
Much more crash worthy (as far as the humans inside are concerned).
Hmmm, I'm convinced, bring over that new Holden LS1 / 6 speed car and I might even give a darn about new cars.
Back to the topic!! I would also like to see steel bumpers on cars, the urethane, painted bumpers really lack the style and flash the older cars had.
But my friend just hollered at me "ARE YOU CRAZY!?", when I hit them. But I figured hey, they're bulky 5 mph bumpers, it's not going to do anything to them. But that's something I would never dream of doing with a newer car, like my Intrepid. In fact, I have accidentally bumped them a few times with that car, and have the marks to show it! My friend looked at me like I was a psycho when I told him that I used to bump those wooden posts all the time with the old Plymouth...that was my way of knowing that I was all the way in the parking spot!
I think the thinking behind the extra chrome is that if you're unhip enough to not want 17" wheels and an ice-wagon ride you're probably unhip enough to like chrome.
It's scary how well they know me.
That, plus headlights could kill ya
One thing I've always wondered...how reliable was the fuel injection system they used on Chevys and Pontiac Bonnevilles back in '57? I know that Chrysler tried fuel injection as an option in their DeSoto Adventurers and Chrysler 300D's for '58, but it was so unreliable that every single example was returned to the dealership and re-fitted with dual-quads. I think it was actually some form of electronic fuel injection as well, supplied by Bendix?
Besides, my computer has currently...
Windows 98 Uptime: 2wks 6days 12hrs 26mins 14secs
Not bad for a bloated Microsoft program.
Will somebody please speak English?
>>>>
Ah yes, but the processors used in your computer, and the operating systems/instruction sets for them are very, very different from the ones in your car. I've yet to hear of a CPU in a car that wasn't RISC, and if there is one I would be astounded. RISC-based systems are very stable.
>>>>
Here's the deal (Classics Illustrated version).
CISC - Complex Instruction Set Computer
RISC - Reduced Instruction Set Computer
Processors (like the Pentium in an IBM PC) read a stream of numbers which tell it what to do (add two numbers together for instance). One strategy, in an attempt to make processors faster, is to simplify the set of different instructions, make them the same size, and use up space on the chip for internal storage of the program (which can be accessed faster). In truth, the microprocessors out there display both philosophies and are changed over time to suit the types of programs and programming languages people tend to write (adding graphics oriented features, for instance). CISC is the concept of a whole bunch of specialized instructions for the computer, RISC is the concept of a simpler set being executed at a faster rate.
However, this has zip to do with system stability. Geez, at least I didn't say VLIW.
I've also seen some cars with computer equipment or other stuff that shouldn't be visible hanging down below the dashboard. Well, I have a size 13 foot, so it's pretty easy to snag it on some of that low-hanging junk. In fact, there's something that looks like an interface port under the dash on my Intrepid, down below the steering wheel. I'm surprised that I haven't kicked it loose yet!
The only car my family ever had that was plagued with serious computer problems was a 1982 Malibu wagon that my grandparents had. Well, I also had an '88 LeBaron that was far from perfect, as well. It had stuff failing and disabling that car that didn't even exist 20 years earlier! And it had a trip computer that would lie on a regular basis.
Still, for all my griping, I agree that computers are a good thing. But as a car ages, they will also become its downfall.
As for heat, well, how hot does your temp gauge say your car is running? Yes, computer chips are sensitive to heat, but if your car is running hot enough to damage one you already have a problem. Those things naturally run with a lot more heat than most people guess. And, if it's properly designed, it should be MORE reliable than a mechanical component. The reason? Friction and moving parts. True, it can't take as much of a good ole fashioned beating, but that's why (most) of them are nicely hidden away and protected. If I ever see any exposed circuit boards when I'm looking at a car, I can assure you I would skip over it.
But now that you mention it, what's VLIW?
Where I think the problem in cars will erupt is the following:
- Interaction between systems causing difficult to find problems (ie transmissions talking to spark control systems, convertible tops talking to A/C systems, etc.)
- All the additional parts generally.
- Connectors (after a zillion hot/cold cycles, this stuff gets brittle)
- Mid-year changes (oh...that's a 2002 and a 1/4 rear-end speed sensor, we'll have to special order that)
- Goofball electrical issues...bad grounding, noise problems
- Sensor failure (#1 with a bullet)
VLIW, oh boy...in a hundred words or less...
VLIW = very large instruction word
let's take an imaginary processor and write a single line of assembly language (the stuff the machine actually thinks in) for it...
add r1,r2,r3 which will add the contents of some internal memory (called a register) in r2 to the value in r3 and stick it in r1.
To the machine it might look like...
12 5 9 15 (I just invented these numbers) where:
12 = add
5 = r1
9 = r2
15 = r3
so... r1 = r2 + r3
the computer sucks this in and performs the operation, taking some amount of time to do it.
Let's say instead we have two sets of registers...
r1,r2,r3 and s1,s3,s3 and wanted to do the following...
r1 = r2 + r3 *and* s1 = s2 + s3
-or-
12 5 9 15 12 20 25 38
By building one big instruction that does both *at once* we can get twice the work done (on separate chunks of memory). By adding more simultaneous instructions, more stuff can get done at the same time. This sort of thing is done in some specialized processors (Texas Instruments builds a couple, for example) and works pretty well if the software is developed with these abilities in mind. In general there's been a race between making processors faster (ie run at a higher clock speed, that's that mhz/megahertz thing that keeps coming up) vs get more done in a given number of 'ticks'.
VLIW is another thing that has popped out of IBM through the years (like RISC). Those guys really are the uberlords of new, basic computer research.
I was just reading about the new 8-cylinder VW product (a W-8?), which seems to share tooling with the 15 degree V6. Aside from the packaging issues (ie. cram the motor in and around a transaxle in the front), I can't see much here that seems reasonable. A four valve eight (holy toledo, imagine the amount of monkey-motion crammed into that small space), it weighs over 400 pounds!! (410 I think), just a smidge less than a 302 Ford with considerably less displacement (and less horsepower). I expect any significant work on this baby will require pulling the whole drivetrain. Due to the v-angle and weird placement of cylinders, I'll bet it's more of a shaker than a traditional pushrod V-8 (so much for the 'refinement' concept).
A sad thing about modern VW products, is that due to the extra poundage, the new rompin', stompin' motored cars (ie VR6 or 1800 Turbo Golfs) are hardly any quicker than a 1986 16V second generation Golf/Scirroco. Still low to mid 15's in the quarter mile.
Wow! I didn't start out planning a rant this long! Sorry!
I remember replacing the ignition control module in my wife's Omni (this was in the mid-80s). Piece of cake, pull a plug, undo a bolt, pop the new one in. No moving parts, just a small silver box. Much easier than screwing around with points/condensor, or whatever was the equivilant components before EI.
Whover mentioned sensors being the problem was right. I still have nightmares about the '75 Opel Manta I had. Only year of fuel injection + few sold = one nasty expensive mess to fix. i once found out there was only one engine control module for it in the entire USA, but it didn't matter, because no one knew how to fix it anyway.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Well, I've had the chance to drive that kind of minimalist car and it's interesting. Not bad, not good, just interesting.
I'm renting a Geo Metro LSi because the Lincoln LS is in the shop, that's all they'll pay for and right now I can't afford to upgrade to a real car. (There's something wrong when you're leasing a $32k car and you get the same loaner you'd get if you were driving a two-year-old Mystique. Next time I'll read the fine print.)
You'll recognize the Metro if I tell you it looks like the car nine out of ten circus clowns prefer. Every car looms over it, even my wife's Infiniti G20. You're definitely at the bottom of the food chain and it's changed my perspective. I saw that new upmarket Hyundai (XG3?) and for an instant it looked mighty good, God help me.
I wouldn't say the Metro is tinny, but when you close the trunk it sounds like you're closing an empty 55-gallon drum. Opening the driver's door makes the same noise my wife's Thunderbird did after the accident shoved the fender back into the door.
There is no apparent sound deadening so you actually hear mechanical noises. Not all of them are enjoyable, and some of the clunks and groans probably shouldn't be there, but overall this is not a bad thing.
It has a three-speed automatic and I'm pretty sure it's not a Turbo 400. However, it bangs off shifts like one, which I like.
It's actually pretty quick around town and gets on the freeway with some authority. I was beginning to suspect they did this with gearing and when I tried to get it above 70 I found out I was right--it was not happy.
The steering is manual, and makes up for its truck-like heaviness by having no feel. If any of you have driven an old Mustang with manual steering--my previous benchmark for lousy steering--this is much worse.
In fact, the Metro is the 2001 version of a '61 Falcon I had years ago, a car I hated then and get nostalgic about now. Not bad in small doses, but not what I'd want as an everyday driver.
Uh, I better shut up now. Someone here might actually own a Metro!
Power windows were once a luxury thing, but nowadays, it seems like they've designed crank windows to be such an annoyance that you're better off getting power windows just to avoid the hassle. Windows in cars are taller nowadays, and the mechanism to roll them down is much flimsier, so as a result, a window that used to take 2-3 turns of the crank to put down now takes 5, 6, or more. Plus, they always seem to put the window cranks in the most awkward of places, for me at least. Sometimes I worry about power windows failing, as well. Over on one of the Intrepid boards, it seems that power window failures are pretty common on them. I haven't had one fail yet, and have about 52K on my '00. I think the earliest my family's had a power window fail was on an '85 Chevy Silverado, when it was about 6 years old. Forget the miles, though. I had 2 fail on my Gran Fury, one around 9 years/75K miles, and the second around 10 years/100K miles.
As for stripper cars, I think the biggest car I've seen lately that you can still get pretty basic is the Malibu. I know I've seen a few of them with crank windows. But it's going to have ABS :-( I guess, if you want to go large, you can still get a base Suburban with crank windows, can't you? Might get mistaken for a construction crew truck, though!
The only real problem I have with something that small is that I don't real safe mixing it up with Suburbans. I didn't feel that way when my daily driver was an MGB but I was younger then and there weren't as many 5000-lb. trophy trucks on the road then.
From the way he was driving it though, he should be thankful he had ABS!
Today I pulled the plug on my experiment in seeing how little car I could live with. I told the service writer--nicely--that I wanted either my own car fixed and back or an upgrade from the Metro. So now I'm driving an Altima (waahoo!). Sure hope I don't put L-M out of business. You'd think so the way the service manager reacted. (I lease a $32k car from these guys and get the same level of service I got when I brought them a $14k Mystique. I guess they don't want to spoil me.)
I'm just minimalist enough (or cheap enough) to like the Metro even though it's a penalty box by modern standards. All I would ask for is a four-speed automatic...even just a locking torque converter would be a bonus. The engine starts winding around 35 and by 65 it's about to wind right out of its mounts.
I also think a plus-2 wheel/tire package would go a long way toward improving the Metro's looks, but I'd hesitate to do something that would make the manual steering even harder to use.
Remember how an MGB sounds when you start it? Doesn't the starter make kind of a dry scraping sound and barely turn the engine over? So does the Metro, which I think is a nice retro touch. I wonder if it's positive ground?
I'll never wish for less stuff on a car again. Stuff is good.