Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords

17891113

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...possibly make the car sell faster, even if it's not for more money? For instance, I would think a rear window defroster would be a definite asset. This coming from one who had frost on his car this morning! While I may not pay more for a car with a rear window defroster, it might still make the decision if I were looking at two of the same car in the same condition, and only one had the defroster.

    Speaking of options, if a car has an option, but it doesn't work, is it worth more than that car withouth the option at all? For instance, my '67 Catalina 'vert has factory a/c. It doesn't work though. Would it be worth more though, than a '67 Catalina 'vert that didn't have a/c to begin with?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Speaking of options and the purists who love them...

    My favorite purist story concerns a guy I knew back in my GTO days who was the very essence of the type. If you weren't running the correct AC Delco wiper blade refills you were less than human.

    Well, after a year of so of listening to him sneer about modifications and the sub-humans responsible for them I find him one day in his back yard replacing the original automatic in his mint original '66 with a non-original four speed.

    Maybe he was going to call it a dealer-installed option.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    This sort of thing probably has been discussed before (mea culpa) but I just love the whole deal with inspection marks. Little dabs of paint (replicating some sort of smudge potentially put there by some guy who just polished off a blunt in the parking lot in late 1969) on rear ends, etc. treated as some sort of holy relic. You also gotta love those stamps Camaro guys buy (jeez, what are the letter? P/S/B or something? none of my cars came with it) for the firewall.

    Sr. Shiftright...do the Ferrari people have the equivalent of this sort of thing?
  • chris396chris396 Member Posts: 53
    I bought a '69 Corvette tripower for my Camaro convertible. You should see the look of horror on some purist's faces when I tell them I'm putting it on.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    No, collectors of "vintage Ferraris" are surprisingly free of this sort of hang up, the reason being a) many Ferraris were raced right off the showroom floor, and it is understood that they would have engine switches, new front clips, etc. It's a badge of honor in some cases and not thought to be a "defect".; and b) it was not uncommon for Ferraris of the same year and type to each be a bit different. They aren't mass produced cars so there was all kinds of variation, things added, things forgotten, etc.

    I'd say the most important thing to a Ferrari owner is "provenance"---where the car came from, who owned it, how long, where did it race if ever. The Italians are not above counterfeiting an entire rare Ferrari from scratch.

    QUESTION ON OPTIONS:

    Yes, in my opinion a non working a/c unit, if it were factory installed, would make a car more valuable than one without a/c at all. The option doesn't have to work or even be in good shape to count.

    And no, I can't imagine a rear defroster making a difference one way or the other to a collector, because no two used cars are ever that equal that a minor option would tip the scale. There are always other mitigating factors, not just one little one. At least that's how I see classic car deals go down.
  • mhansen1mhansen1 Member Posts: 14
    Still convinced that some of the options on my RS will still make it attractive and more desirable if I were to ever sell it (which will not happen by the way). The rarity quotient is there. For an example, only 1755 '68's were built with the Light System, 2234 with headrests, 2344 with Speed Warning, 3304 with Power Windows and 6181 with the Defroster. 20117 were built with the disc brakes. Now ... the sum of that onto one car makes it (in my opinion) more desirable. And ... we are not even talking about the 20 more on the car (what I listed were the rarest except for the brakes)
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,031
    In the old car world the #1 priority is condition when it comes to determining value. But other things being equal, a high-option car is always going to be worth more thanone without. For some people, part of the enjoyment is finding and adding those factory options. I have a friend who has a '71 Cutlass SX and he has added just about every option available from Olds in '71 to that car - all of them hunted down from original sources.

    I often zing him about how his car is "overrestored" (it is truly beautiful) but he has showed integrity in not trying to recreate something that wasn't there originally in terms of markings and documentation. In contrast, another acquaintance is a very skilled restorer who does this as a second income - buys a 60's/'70s car (usually muscle cars or convertibles), does a quickie restoration, and flips the car at Carlisle for a good profit.

    What this guy does that really bugs me is add all of the supposed factory production line markings, even ones that weren't there. He has a selection of different grease pencils, paint pens and stamps, and away he goes with marks all over the firewall, rad support, etc. I find it ridiculous and quite distasteful, if not downright fraudulent. But he and his customers seem to find it irresistable.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    If I may, I'd like to bounce this option question around a bit more since it is an ongoing problem in appraisal work and a thorn in everyone's side. It's an interesting issue to discuss.

    I don't think the rarity of small options matters in overall value, because we could come up with even rarer combinations on cars worth far less than your car. You could put every option known to man in your car, and prove that only 1 was built with all those options, and only take away the SS/RS stuff and put in a 6 cylinder engine and you have very little left to sell to anyone.

    What the rarer options will give you is something to talk about at swap meets!

    This is an argument (debate) I go through all the time in appraisal work, and from my own point of view it isn't a good argument because assigning small options extra value merely inflates the value of the car in the eyes of the owner, who then feels burned when it comes time for an insurance settlement.

    Your car has more than enough to guarantee its future value as time goes on. I think that coming up with combinations of small options and divising rarity quotients ultimately.obscures the true value of the car to all concerned.

    However, it is great and harmless historical research and I encourage you to pursue it. I have often done this myself with cars I've owned.

    Bottom line, it would be very difficult to show that anyone really cares (checkbook wise) if only 500 Mustangs came with BOTH the blue interior lights and the remote trunk release on the same car. To me these are more curiosities than significant determinants on Fair Market Value.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    I think you can split (this is talking American iron from the '60s here) options into four categories....

    1) The obvious differentiators...models and engines, convertibles, etc...great thumping difference in value.

    2) Stuff no one cares about... speed warning, defroster stuff, slight differences in interior trim, vinyl roofs (probably a minus),AM/FM, power windows.

    3) Stuff that makes the car a bit more drivable (if bought to drive, you never can tell anymore), power steering, disk brakes, auto vs. manual, gauge package... might be a go/no-go decision for a buyer. I guess you could throw desirable colors in here (Pink Mopars, orange Boss 302's, etc.).

    4) Truly rare high performance stuff (usually Chevrolet)...dual quads on 302 + the fiberglass hood, 4 wheel disks on Camaro, aluminum heads, ummmm...I'm running out of stuff here....maybe the sports car package (ie. 15 inch wheels + handling junk) on Camaro....that goofy lightweight rear end thing on 442. All of this tends to be darned hard to document.

    As far as synthesizing rarity via rare combinations of setups, the Chrysler guys seem to have everybody beat. In general, I wouldn't even think about option rarity unless the car were a desirable (ie. high performance) model. OTOH, not being able to see through the floor is a big plus.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    So, is my 1964 Galaxie 500XL convertible worth a whole lot less because it started life as a Galaxie 500 and I added/installed all the pieces (buckets, console, door panels, interior/exterior trim, floor shift, rear speaker chrome housing, etc) to make it a 500XL?

    Also, the motor is still a 1964 Ford 352/250hp, but it's not the one that came with the car. Is that a problem also?

    Fortunately, since I purchased this car in 1969 with 46,000 miles, and it now has 207,000 miles, I don't think that I could ever sell it.

    Now, if anybody wants a rust free, 95% original, 1958 TBird with 60,000 miles, second owner, original papers (even found some vintage old maps in the glove compartment)........
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    Not that my opinion is worth anything...but I would think that the value of a Galaxie convertible is almost all in the condition rather than the options (noteworthy exception being a 427 car)...heck, anything with a fabric top is worth a fair amount.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    You could be right, even a 390 probably isn't going to have much value over a 289 or 352. It's a good engine but it doesn't have the street cachet that adds significant value. Big Fords aren't known for their engines, at least the way Chevies and Pontiacs are. There aren't that many 406s and 427s and in fact those engines have too cam and carburetion (and they're too expensive) to work for the average hobbyist. That was Ford's problem for most of the '60s--either too much engine or not enough.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    True comments.

    My cousin had a 65 Impala SS 327/250; my friend had a 65 Galaxie 390/300, both 4 speed. (Another friend had a 1964 Galaxie 390/300 that felt much faster than the 65 Ford, but I believe rear end ratios on 1964 manuals were 3:50. I put a 3.50 rear end in my convertible; gets a little rough over 65 mph with the 14" wheels.)

    The 65 Ford could not stay with the 65 Chevvie (blame the rear end ratio a little bit: 3.00 vs 3.36.)

    But the Ford could lug 4th gear down to 20 mph with a full load of riders and pull away without a miss.

    Back then, my 1965 Corvette (327/300; 3:08 rear) couldn't lug at that speed; had to downshift, but I could cruise at 50 mph at 1900 rpm and 100 mph under 4000 rpm, if memory serves me correctly...

    Fastest car I ever drove (back in the late 80's) was one of those all black, turbo Porches with the big "whale tail".

    Fastest car I ever rode in was a 56 modified Corvette with 5:14 gears (built for the 1/8 mile track).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    There is a premium added to the Galaxie for the XL but I think it's true that on cars like this, which are not "muscle cars", condition counts for almost everything.

    So if you "clone" a 500 into an XL, I think you've raised the value of the 500 but it would not bring quite the same amount as an equally nice "real" XL. Not all that much difference, though. A "cloned" GTO would suffer much much more in value over a "real" GTO.

    NDANCE -- that was a GREAT run-down on options and what they might mean.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    But I can tell you the 390 isn't that hard to wake up. Holley, Edelbrock Performer and a good aftermarket cam (in my case a hot hydraulic cam from Competition Cams) and it was very interesting, even with stock heads and exhaust manifolds.
  • pallypally Member Posts: 17
    I have 2 1967 Galaxie 500 2 door hardtops with 390 2bbl's and 2.75 axles. One has over 100,000 brutal miles (all city). The other has 51,000 miles. No matter what i have tried the 100,000 mile car is faster and has more torque than the 51,000 mile car. I mention this to show that you can take identical cars, of any make, and find major performance varitions.
    For the record, in most road tests from the 60's and 70's there was rarely more than half a second difference in acceleration between comparably equipped Ford, GM, and Mopars.

    In the March 67' Motor Trend they test a Plymouth Sport Fury with 383 4bbl and 3.23 axle, a Chevy Impala Super Sport with 396 4bbl and 2.73 axle,
    and a Ford Galaxie 500 with 390 4bbl and 2.75 axle.

    Chevy 0-60 9.1 sec, 1/4 mile 17 sec. at 83mph
    Mopar 0-60 9.6 sec, 1/4 mile 17.4 at 81 mph
    Ford 0-60 9.2 sec, 1/4 mile 17.4 at 82 mph

    Chevy passing 50-70 mph 6.0 sec.
    Mopar passing 50-70 mph 5.4 sec.
    Ford passing 50-70 mph 5.5 sec.

    all cars were within 100 lbs. of each other give or take.

    About the only notable differences noted in the test was that Ford's Quality was excellent, Chevy's was better than expected, and Mopar's was poor.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Though I have only the 2 bbl version of the 390, interesting to see how it compares to my 2000 Intrepid R/T - Car and Driver tested it at 0-60 in 7.9, though the Galaxie feels faster up to about 30 mph.

    In 35 years, quarter mile dropped by 1.3 seconds, and mileage went up about 47%. Too bad it costs an arm and a leg to fix a newer car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...aren't 2-bbl engines a bit quicker from 0-30 than their 4-bbl counterparts? I've heard this a couple times. Maybe because the primaries on 4-bbls tend to be smaller than on 2-bbls?

    My dentist, a long-time friend of the family, always bought Impalas and Caprices, although now he has a '96 Roadmaster. He said he always picked a 4-bbl over a 2-bbl, because he'd get better economy as long as he didn't put his foot into it.

    I'm actually surprised the Mopar in MT posted a time that poorly. I remember an issue of Consumer Reports, which is usually much more conservative and realistic in their tests, where they got a '68 or so Coronet with a 318-2bbl and 2.76:1 gearing to do 0-60 in 10 seconds flat. Sure, a Fury is heavier than a Coronet, but a 383-4bbl is a helluva lot stronger than a 318-2, not to mention quicker gearing!

    When it came to more basic, everyday cars, Mopars usually did pretty well, at least in Consumer Reports testing. Usually they'd pit a Pontiac Catalina, a Fury, a Galaxie, and an Impala together. The Pontiac, sporting either a 389 or 400, depending on year, usually walked the others like dogs, and got the best mileage because of tall gearing. The Mopar usually had a 318 2-bbl, and would come in second in acceleration, but I forget about fuel economy. I forget what they'd stick in the Fords...probably 289's or 302's? And the Chevies usually had 283's or, later, 307's.

    Chevy in particular got pretty bad in the later years. I remember one test, 1968 I think, where the 307 did 0-60 in 14.5 seconds. Chevy really didn't catch up to Mopar until Consumer Reports started testing them with 350's, and by that time, Pontiac's 400 had been downrated, too, so things started to equalize.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Those are interesting numbers. The trap speeds are virtually identical which suggests they were all making virtually the same horsepower. The Mopar's 3.23s probably contributed to the better passing time.

    A spreadbore four barrel like GM's Quadrajet or I believe the Carter Thermoquad should offer better mpg at part throttle because the primaries are small. But there's a trade-off. The Q-Jet doesn't breathe as well at wide open throttle (or actually the air/fuel distribution isn't as good) because of the big difference in size between the primaries and secondaries.

    I've also run across the idea that two barrels are quicker than four barrels at low speeds. I think where this might come from is that in the '50s the four barrel engine often had a hotter cam that didn't begin to turn on until the car was well out of the hole.
  • argentargent Member Posts: 176
    The response of a carburetor depends very much on the venturi size. The narrower venturi area of a typical 2-bbl carb increases the intake SPEED at lower rpm, which improves low-end response, but at higher engine speeds it's too small to allow enough intake VOLUME for top-end power. Conversely, a bigger carb may allow more air at high speeds, but at low speeds the intake is sluggish, making the engine feel sleepy. On a multi-barrel carb -- a staged four-barrel or progressive multi-carb setups like the old Pontiac Tri-Power setup -- it depends on the size of the primaries and secondaries. A lot of four-barrel street carburetors ran on very small primaries, only tipping into the big secondaries at like 3/4ths throttle, to maximize low-end fuel economy. The problem was that you'd get a big jolt when the secondaries cut in (Mopars with the Six Barrel -- 3 x 2bbl -- carbs were notorious for this, because the linkage was vacuum controlled based on engine demand, and on the big 440 engine the extra kick when the front and rear carbs cut in could be a handful).

    It's all about Bernoulli's principle: smaller area is higher speed but lower volume; bigger area is lower speed but higher volume. The same tradeoffs apply to valve lift, intake runner size, throttle body diameter, and other engine parameters, which is why modern engines increasingly use variable valve timing and variable intake runner setups. The ultimate example, so far, is BMW's Valvetronic, which combines variable valve timing with an infinitely variable-length intake manifold (it's a rotary arrangement that changes its effective length to basically any value between two extremes), controlled by the engine computer. By doing this, it completely eliminates the conventional throttle body and throttle plate: the engine varies the valve and intake settings to give the engine exactly as much mixture as it wants at any given RPM. BMW figures that this is good for 10-15% more efficiency than a conventional-throttle engine; it dramatically reduces the frictional losses you get from the throttle plate itself at part throttle, which improves real-world, around-town fuel economy. Wonders of technology...
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    "Wonders of technology..."

    SOunds, um, complicated. When you consider GM is still doing pretty good with old-fashioned pushrod 3.8 V-6's, you have to wonder if that kind of technology will ever trickle down to mass produced cars? In ten years, those BMW's will most likely have atrocious (sp?) resale value compared to their initial price. All that high-technology gizmology, and a local mechanic scratching his head at why an intake manifold needs so dang many moving parts. Still, a pretty good idea, and a good example of the leading edge of technology for top of the line cars.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    just strikes me as moving the level of serviceable parts up the food chain. It's happening everywhere, just look at how few replaceable parts there are in a modern computer. I expect what will happen is that these major parts will (hopefully) work the lifetime of the car (perhaps, by definition) and be replaced rather than fixed.

    Do humans rebuild alternators anymore? fuel pumps? distributors? I expect less and less. In any case, I expect mysterious failures will be at the peripheries (connectors, cracked vacuum fittings, etc. due to the vibration and hot/cold cycles).

    At this risk of repeating myself, the model for cars is obviously leaving the industrial/mechanical domain and entering the medical one. Failures will become more rare but more expensive over time. Health insurance (ie. extended warranties) will become mandatory. The whole thing is a natural side effect of attempting to mimic natural systems by building ever smarter and more capable vehicles. In essence, we are creating life forms.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    That's scary. Maybe I'll have to start naming my cars. Maybe they already have names and I just don't know them. :-)

    I wonder what increasing complexity will do to the value of used cars? I'm out of the used car market because I can't afford a car that isn't under warranty, and I have my doubts about aftermarket warranties. Would an extended warranty enhance the value of a used car or would the cost of the warranty be (in effect) deducted from the value of the car?
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    I wonder if cars will start acting like Robin Williams in "Bicentennial Man"?
    When you say these more complex parts will last the life of a car, what really needs clarifying is what the life of a car really is. To use your life form analogy, more old folks have pacemakers, hearing aids, eyeglasses, ect, than younger folks because their parts are worn out and breaking more. Same thing with cars. A new Grand Marquis will likely break down less than my '78. So what is the life expectancy of these new BMWs, and other cars at the very cutting edge of technology? Ten years? Twenty? I'm of the school of thought that says drive 'em til the fall apart, tape 'em back together, and drive 'em some more. I've got nothing against new cars, there are several models I'd love to have, but if I bought one, I'd plan on getting at elast 150,000 miles out of it before I even think about replacing it. Of the three cars I've owned, two have been 20 years old or more, and the third I drove well past the 200,000 mile mark. I'm afraid with some of these new, high tech cars, you start hitting about 10 years, and lots of things will start going wrong, and the car will suddenly become very expensive to fix. So, yes, these complex, high tech systems willl last the life of the car, but how long is that?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I think even ten years is optimistic. Anything out of the original warranty is suspect to me, but maybe that's just me. I don't have a steady paycheck and a few slow months capped by a blown transmission could be a life-changing event.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    It seems to me that the lifetime of 'complex, high tech systems' IS the life of the car. Maybe a reliability engineer would graph automotive lifetimes against some sort of gaussian curve with the middle, at say, 150k miles. Early deaths would be blamed on shear bad luck or accidents, high longevity on good eating habits (maintenance) and DNA (brand/design).

    I think the lifeform analogy is stronger than just a medical care = car care standpoint (in terms of risk/reward). Over time, designs will evolve to a far greater degree of intelligence...the near term with smarter control systems (ABS, control loops between engines and transmissions, safety devices) and in the longer term with higher states of control (automated highways, limited capabilites for healing). Higher states of control is an especially interesting thing...imagine the car (in terms of smarts) as a 3500 pound cockroach with wheels.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,031
    Personally I think cars reached their pinnacle about 1972 and have been going downhill ever since... ;-)

    Seriously though, with all of the electronic controls in todays cars they can do wonders, putting out more power more cleanly using less fuel than ever. But all those controls mean they are simply not serviceable the way they used to be.

    A friend had an early 90s Cadillac with about 80K miles. Suddenly things started to go wrong. A hesitation when pulling away from a stop. Erratic braking behavior. Sudden changes in idle speed. Strange transmission behavior. This car had been maintained fanatically by him at great cost, always by the GM dealer. But they were fairly helpless to gix any of these except by replacing very expensive components. Estimates of over $1000 for the brake problem (ABS), upwards of $2K for the engine (replacing most of the sensors and computer), etc. Far more than the car was worth. He ended up selling it because there was no justification for putting that much into it with no assurance that it would actually fix what was wrong, because the dealer really couldn't say for sure that it would. Nobody really understands what all these things do and how they interact.

    Even the best electronics can be flaky. Can you imagine trying to fix a 7-series BMW 10 years from now? It would probably be impossible.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    I like and own, old cars, that I can fix myself, and keep running indefinitely, at low cost, and with a helluva lot of fun!
    My 90 Dodge Conversion van [my newest rig] had a voltage regulator problem last May. Flaky things happening with lights, amp qauge, etc. Finally, the whole thing just died. Voltage regulator? Yes-which, that year, was an integral part of the power module [computer]. Had to replace the whole thing. Cost to replace? $850 bucks. And they said I was lucky compared to some. Yeah right.
    I can't imagine an expensive BMW, Audi or something like that when it approaches the 80-100,000 mile mark.
    Yikes!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    junkyard, most of them. Cost to fix vs. market value of car. Do the math.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    One major event can easilly total an otherwise nice car. Scary!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    WHICH is why 60s cars are so popular. Some people say that 1967 is the last year of car you can actually fix with basic hand tools. More or less, kinda sorta, that's just about right for most cars, as this is when complex fuel injection systems appeared on foreign cars. For domestics, probably about 1974 would be the last year, I'm guessing, as carburetors and emissions controls started getting hairy about then and EI ignition came in.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Hm...Fuel injection is that old? I knew they had it back in the 50's, but didn't think it became common on foreign or domestic until the 80's. I've got an '82 Mercury with a 302 that's carbureted.

    Just thought of something evil for the "V-8 swap" forum. 10 or 15 years from now, pick up a BMW 7 series with flakey electronics for a song, and drop an old fashioned 454 big block under the hood. Yank out that "I-Drive" thing, and put in a killer stereo, and it's got to be better than sending it to the junkyard!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...a domestic manufacturer offered fuel injection and never looked back was around 1974-75. That was around when Cadillac started offering an FI option on the 500 that went into the big Caddies, as well as an FI Olds 350 that went into the Seville. From then on out, I believe Cadillac always offered fuel injection, at least as an option.

    Otherwise, I don't think FI was that common on '70's cars. In 1980, GM had an FI 2.8 that went into Citations and the like, that put out around 135 hp in a time when the 2-bbl gave about 110. Chrysler offered it on the '81-83 Imperial, where it boosted the 318 from 130 to 140 hp.

    I think Chrysler cars, at least the RWD ones, stayed fairly simple to work on right up through 1989, when the last M-bodies rolled off the assembly line. Sure, there are vacuum hoses galore, and the engine is mounted tight against the firewall, making the distributor a real joy to get to, but compared to the few RWD GM and Ford cars still around, they were pretty easy. At least, comparing my '89 Gran Fury, '79 Newport, and '79 New Yorker to roughly similar GM cars like the '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass Supreme, '85 LeSabre, adn '86 Monte I had, the Mopars have been easier to work on.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Americans have traditionally been way behind the Europeans in Automotive technology. Mercedes had fuel injection in 1955 on production cars, and Volkswagon had fuel injection standard on all squarebacks in 1968. Alfa Romeo had fuel injection standard on all models in 1968-69, along with Porsche and BMW. These early systems are still repairable as most of them (except VW) were mechanical injection. They all worked pretty well, too, for their time, and offered a big advantage for solving emissions problems.
  • amazonamazon Member Posts: 293
    The Bosch Jetronic was an electronic system until 1973 (or thereabouts) It was called D-Jetronic and was not very good. (Installed in the Swedish police volvos it made them stall when the radio was used). This system was installed in VW, Porsche, Volvo, and probably some other brands I forgot.

    The mechanically managed FI system came out as the K-Jetronic, and was a big improvement.

    Kugelfisher was a completely mechanical (even the pump) system. Very reliable and popular among the hot rodders. This system was used in BMW, Peugot, and others.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    injection system, where the fuel rail was directly over the hot cylinders. The high fuel pressure, combined with a leak, spelled disaster for a lot of 70s VW bus drivers. I saw one go up here recently by the roadside. Scary. '
    Thing is, alot of those old 70s VW buses were driven by people who were not mechanically inclined, and tended to neglect them.
    Look out.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,031
    I started laughing out loud when I read this and couldn't stop. Now all I can think of is that Johnny Cash song and I have mental images of flaming VWs. Great phrase. :)

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    So are you saying that even the Bosch Motronic system in my '93 Volvo 850 is leagues ahead of this so-called D-Jetronic injection?
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    Wish I could take credit for the phrase, but I remember reading about it somewhere in a magazine 20 or more years ago. Apparently it was a known problem, and a few fires had occured, and someone aptly named that fuel rail the "ring of fire".
    Now that I think of it, the image of an old VW bus in flames to the tune of the Johhny Cash song is funny as hell.
    This one I saw at the roadside, though, was scary. It was a Westphalia camper, looked a little neglected, and as I watched, the firetrucks fought it for awhile-but then the propane tanks inside exploded, and the thing was burning so furiously they just backed away and gave up.
    I think I remember some litigation about these back in the 70s.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...as a kid, I remember the most common car to see burning up on the side of the road was a Volkswagen Beetle, it seems. Did the Beetles have the same flaw as the VW buses?

    Nowadays, it seems the most common car I see burned up on the side of the road is a Ford product...usually Lincolns. I always figured it was all that extra wiring that goes into luxury cars.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    Geez, luxury cars require that much wiring? It must extend for miles.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...since cheaper cars can be optioned up pretty luxuriously. Back in the day though, luxury cars usually had more power stuff like seats, antennas, windows, locks, mirrors, more interior lights, and even more bulbs in the taillights.

    For example, my 1980 Malibu had one interior light...the dome light. My '79 New Yorker has one light in each of the front doors, two lights in each of the back doors, a map light on the dash, a light in the glove box, two little courtesy lights in the footwell, and another little light built into each opera window that would illuminate the fancy cursive "Fifth Avenue" writing at night.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'll have to disagree on that one. The VW electronic fuel injection was, overall, outstanding. Mostly it was plagued by poor grounding and inaccessibility, and by the ignorance of the older VW mechanics who worked on them. (Remember how John Muir, the "Compleat Idiot" author, used to rant against injection, and later recanted, humbly?)

    If you want fuel injection guaranteed to catch fire, try a Jaguar V-12 or a Lotus.

    But I'm glad CIS injection came along soon after.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    Why were Jaguar V-12 and Lotus fuel injection systems so plagued by troubles?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Just poor design...but back to Chevies and Fords!
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,031
    Yes... the injection in the 60s and 70s Fords and Chevies never caused a single problem! :)

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    I don't know about Lotus, but on a Jag, from my understanding, the distributor would fail, cutting spark to one bank of cylinders, but the engine was so smooth, other than a severe loss of power, the driver would never notice. Nor, appearantly, would the ECU, and it would continue delivering fuel to the now dead cylinders. Raw fuel would hit the hot catalytic converter, and....
    "I fell into a burnin' ring of fire!"
  • argentargent Member Posts: 176
    The early fuel-injected Jags (and I figure Lotus, too) used Lucas fuel injection, made by Lucas Electrics. Joseph Lucas, whom wags dubbed 'the prince of darkness,' was responsible for the shoddy electrics of most British cars of the 60s and 70s, which for a wide range of reasons were deeply unreliable. (Aston Martin, for example, was forced to abandon Lucas injection on its V-8 coupe in favor of Weber carbs, because they couldn't get decent driveability AND meet emissions regs with the injection! When Ford and Lola were adapting the NASCAR side-oiler 427 for the GT40 racing car in 1966, they opted for a carburetor rather than Lucas injection, as well.)

    The system used by VW in the early 70s was, if I recall correctly, actually originally developed by CHRYSLER corporation in the 1950s! This was the system that was offered very briefly on a handful of Chrysler and DeSoto models (the 300D and Adventurer, I think) for about $400. Only a tiny handful of units were sold, and almost all were hastily recalled and replaced with four-barrel carburetors. Evidently ChryslerCo decided at the very last minute that the FI system was a disaster and decided to cut their losses. They sold the program to Bosch for a song. The Chrysler system was very different than the Rochester fuel injection systems offered by Chevrolet and Pontiac (which were not the same); those were mechanical injection systems, not electronic. It took another generation or two of technological development to make it really reliable for normal passenger car use.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...used a fuel injection system by Bendix? I saw a '58 Adventurer convertible at Hershey about a month ago. It originally had the fuel injection, but was converted to a dual quad carb. The plaque sitting in front of the car said that only 12 or 13 Adventurers had fuel injection, although I don't know if they meant all Adventurers or just convertibles.

    One thing I always wondered...since people paid $400 extra for fuel injection (I've heard from various sources it was $800), did they get a refund when the car was converted back to a dual quad?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I doubt there is a connection from the 1950s to the 1968 VW injection system, since it uses a microcomputer. This story is probably just a myth created by American wounded pride.

    But perhaps the "principles" or theory of operation could be connected and perhaps indeed developed by US engineers. Don't know myself. I'd presume any "electronic" fuel injection from the 1950s would be based on vacuum tubes, since there were no transistors or microprocessors in everyday production. I guess the system on 57 Chevies was Bendix but there was another system out then...just escapes me at the moment.

    Mechanical injection was old news already by 1968. It was developed for fighter aircraft in the 1940s and I've even found some evidence of an injection system in the early 1900s.
This discussion has been closed.