Is it a function of age? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Air&Road · #46 11-18-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D

Yeah and before you guys go waxing all nostalgic about those '60's and '70's chunks of Detroit iron remember;

Ignition points which broke, burnt or slipped at the most inconvenient times.
Drum brakes on performance cars

,
20K miles on a set of plugs? Forget about it!
"Automatic" chokes which "automatically" decided WHEN they were going to work.
100K on an engine? What are you smoking? Yeah, yeah, I know, "My Uncle Harvey had a '52 Chevy which went a bajillion miles". One out of a 1000 cars, maybe.
10-12 mpg on most of those "performance" cars.
Carburetors, carburetors, carburetors. Did I mention carburetors?
"Quadra-floods", "Auto-light on fire's", "Thermo-burns", "Holey shyte, it's on fires".
Distributors precisely engineered to funnel any bit of moisture into the cap shorting it out, at 3:00 AM, in your girlfriend's parents' driveway after sneaking her home three hours after her curfew.

I don't disagree with much of the above. 20K out of a set of plugs in a battery ignition car would make it hard to start and it would run like crap.

I religiously changed points and plugs and set everything properly at 10K mile intervals in those days. If you didn't change points and plugs at the same time, you were asking for it.

The first cool morning of the late Fall, early Winter had seemingly half the cars on the block not starting. I'm sure if you had done some research, you would have found that the ones not starting had seen points and plugs in awhile.

Of all the modern automotive technologies, electronic fuel injection is at the top of the list IMHO. Once we got away from carburetors we did away with the washing of the oil off the cylinder walls during cold starts. This decreased engine life pretty seriously.

Most any car today is capable of 300,000 miles with reasonable preventive maintenance. In the sixties, 100K miles was about par.

cjlipps · #47 11-18-2011, 11:38 AM

I think, for most of us anyway, we like and seek cars that make us feel like we did when we were much younger and first saw them. Everybody is getting older and everybody is mortal and as we age (I'm a 1962 model) we wax nostalgic to bring back the feelings from a bygone-never-to-return era.
Also boys tend to absorb their Father's viewpoints and if Dad liked it we probably will too.

MS Fowler · #48 11-18-2011, 11:49 AM

In 1967-69 I worked in a gas station--full time in the summer, part time during school.
Esso--then Exxon sold 3 grades of gas--94, 97 and 100 octane. They discontinued the 101 octane about 1966

Every time we had rain after a long dry spell, we knew the phone would ring for "no start" service calls. Most of them seemed to be Chryslers. Maybe that's why Chrysler went to electronic ignitions earlier than the others, for their whole line. Most everyone had transistor ignition on HP models.
We do tend to view the past thru rose-colored glasses. Remember when 10,000 miles per a set of tires was good? Carburetors were acceptable because it was the only way to mix fuel and air--except in a very few HP models. The Rochester FI on early Vettes was so bad that a friend of mine told me that they simply replaced them with Q-jets, and used the FI units for door stops. Oh to have a time machine and visit that dealer and pick up some door stops! Anyway, in cold weather, with a cold engine, the first start was often a problem. Pump the accelerator to inject a little gas into the manifold, and set the automatic choke, wait a few seconds or minutes for that fuel to vaporize, and hit the starter. No instant starts like today, but grind, grind, grind, until it started, or the battery gave out. Batteries, as well as Generators, or Alternators were of much lower ratings than today. A 30 amp Alternator was OK.
Drum brakes---I never had a problem with high speed fade, but did lose brakes due to water floooding the drums--drove for literally MILES standing on the brake to generate enough heat to dry them out.
How about vacuum windshield wipers? They would nearly stop when the engine was driven hard --WOT produces little vacuum.
No child safety locks on doors, and we didn't lose many children by them falling out.
Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?
Remember rust starting almost before delivery--at least in some parts of the country--, and large rust holes on 2-3 year old cars?
How about Ford's Muscle Parts? They had a catalog of HP parts, and the best way to add the parts to get whatever horse power you wanted? The full Shelby kit for a small block--intake, 4 bbl, cam, lifters, springs a keepers was around $400 IIRC, including the aluminum valve covers? Of course you could buy a new car for $2000, so $400 is a pretty good piece of the cost of a car.
Cars had "character". Maybe today's vanilla, dead-on reliability is better.

aklim · #49 11-18-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps

I think, for most of us anyway, we like and seek cars that make us feel like we did when we were much younger and first saw them. Everybody is getting older and everybody is mortal and as we age (I'm a 1962 model) we wax nostalgic to bring back the feelings from a bygone-never-to-return era.
Also boys tend to absorb their Father's viewpoints and if Dad liked it we probably will too.

So your thesis is that we are trying to recapture our youth like the stereotypical middle aged guy buying a sports car and have a young wife?

cjlipps · #50 11-18-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So your thesis is that we are trying to recapture our youth like the stereotypical middle aged guy buying a sports car and have a young wife?

No, I'm thinking that by seeing that '70 Chevelle or '57 Chevy drive by and wistfully remembering days gone by will be enough youth-recapture that we won't jump off and buy a sports car and trade in the wife on a newer model.

OTOH, I have been pondering an older SL.....

.....but the Wife stays.

Air&Road · #51 11-18-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

In 1967-69 I worked in a gas station--full time in the summer, part time during school.
Esso--then Exxon sold 3 grades of gas--94, 97 and 100 octane. They discontinued the 101 octane about 1966

Every time we had rain after a long dry spell, we knew the phone would ring for "no start" service calls. Most of them seemed to be Chryslers. Maybe that's why Chrysler went to electronic ignitions earlier than the others, for their whole line. Most everyone had transistor ignition on HP models.
We do tend to view the past thru rose-colored glasses. Remember when 10,000 miles per a set of tires was good? Carburetors were acceptable because it was the only way to mix fuel and air--except in a very few HP models. The Rochester FI on early Vettes was so bad that a friend of mine told me that they simply replaced them with Q-jets, and used the FI units for door stops. Oh to have a time machine and visit that dealer and pick up some door stops! Anyway, in cold weather, with a cold engine, the first start was often a problem. Pump the accelerator to inject a little gas into the manifold, and set the automatic choke, wait a few seconds or minutes for that fuel to vaporize, and hit the starter. No instant starts like today, but grind, grind, grind, until it started, or the battery gave out. Batteries, as well as Generators, or Alternators were of much lower ratings than today. A 30 amp Alternator was OK.
Drum brakes---I never had a problem with high speed fade, but did lose brakes due to water floooding the drums--drove for literally MILES standing on the brake to generate enough heat to dry them out.
How about vacuum windshield wipers? They would nearly stop when the engine was driven hard --WOT produces little vacuum.
No child safety locks on doors, and we didn't lose many children by them falling out.
Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?
Remember rust starting almost before delivery--at least in some parts of the country--, and large rust holes on 2-3 year old cars?
How about Ford's Muscle Parts? They had a catalog of HP parts, and the best way to add the parts to get whatever horse power you wanted? The full Shelby kit for a small block--intake, 4 bbl, cam, lifters, springs a keepers was around $400 IIRC, including the aluminum valve covers? Of course you could buy a new car for $2000, so $400 is a pretty good piece of the cost of a car.
Cars had "character". Maybe today's vanilla, dead-on reliability is better.

LOL! You're description of cold starting reminded me of something. I'm even older than you, if you can imagine that! I'm a '49 model.

About a year ago, someone gave me the Highway Patrol TV show series on DVD. It was filmed in the late fifties. They would jump in a brand new car and grind on the starter for a number of seconds before it would catch. In today's world of EFI, that sounded really funny.

The prices of the time were something I remember well. In early '63 I bought rod bearings and an oil pan gasket for my '48 Chevy. The rod bearings were $1.02 each and the pan gasket was $.90. When I finished and filled it with gas it cost $.19 a gallon.

My Dad had an independent repair shop in the fifties where I "worked" as an elementary school kid. I remember very well the day the man came in and opened up the Coke machine and messed with it for awhile. When he closed it, he put a sticker on it that broke my heart. It said 7 Cents. I had been paying a nickel.

From that era I also remember my Dad talking about a Cadillac that came in needing a COMPLETE exhaust system which consisted of two mufflers, two resonators and about six pipes. I remember him telling people that the job billed to the customer for almost $100 parts and labor. That probably wouldn't buy even buy one muffler today.

Yes, those old cars were neat, but they weren't exactly a picture of longevity or reliability. The good news was that they were simple enough that anyone with a little mechanical ability could keep them going.

aklim · #52 11-18-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps

No, I'm thinking that by seeing that '70 Chevelle or '57 Chevy drive by and

wistfully remembering days gone by will be enough youth-recapture that we won't jump off and buy a sports car and trade in the wife on a newer model.

OTOH, I have been pondering an older SL.....

.....but the Wife stays.

I guess I have never been the nostalgic sort and just realize those days are gone and moved on.

And she is reading this, isn't she? Don't lie, we know.

tbomachines · #53 11-18-2011, 05:15 PM

Don't forget the incredible power that we have now too, coupled with reliability and safety. My little fourbanger hatchback has more power than a 6.6L V8 from the 1970s

aklim · #54 11-18-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

The good news was that they were simple enough that anyone with a little mechanical ability could keep them going.

And maybe that is the real issue. The backyard hacks can't work at it and it takes some real studying and tools.

Skippy · #55 11-18-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Every time we had rain after a long dry spell, we knew the phone would ring for "no start" service calls. Most of them seemed to be Chryslers. Maybe that's why Chrysler went to electronic ignitions earlier than the others, for their whole line. Most everyone had transistor ignition on HP models.

I've run points ignitions on two vehicles without any issues. The first was my '63 Dart with a '79 360 out of a Cordoba with a distributor sourced from a '72 Fury. Second is my '71.

Quote:

We do tend to view the past thru rose-colored glasses. Remember when 10,000 miles per a set of tires was good?

No. I must not be old enough. I usually get about 20,000 out of a set.

Quote:

Carburetors were acceptable because it was the only way to mix fuel and air--except in a very few HP models.

From the 50's onward you could buy a diesel Benz in the U.S. In a low performance application a non-turbo diesel is better than carbs. Mechanical diesel injection paired with a turbocharger is WAY better than carbs, but they didn't offer that in a passenger car until 1978.

Quote:

Anyway, in cold weather, with a cold engine, the first start was often a problem. Pump the accelerator to inject a little gas into the manifold, and set the automatic choke, wait a few seconds or minutes for that fuel to vaporize, and hit the starter. No instant starts like today, but grind, grind, grind, until it started, or the battery gave out. Batteries, as well as Generators, or Alternators were of much lower ratings than today. A 30 amp Alternator was OK.

I've been using the '71 lately. It has points, Zenith carburetors, and a choke system that kicks off after about six seconds. I can still get under way in 30 seconds on a cold day. The real suckage of carburetors is the lousy fuel economy you get with them.

Quote:

Drum brakes---I never had a problem with high speed fade, but did lose brakes due to water floooding the drums--drove for literally MILES standing on the brake to generate enough heat to dry them out.

My Dart had 9x2 inch drums all around. That coupled with the lightly modified 360 I put in it made for some interesting driving. I am now well acquainted with the phenomenon of brake fade.

Quote:

Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?

We never tried, but you could probably have gotten five people into the trunk of my first car.

Quote:

Cars had "character". Maybe today's vanilla, dead-on reliability is better.

It depends on the buyer. A few companies still make a car with character. Fewer still make a car with character that also features Accord-like reliability. They are not inexpensive.

aklim · #56 11-18-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Don't forget the incredible power that we have now too, coupled with reliability and safety. My little fourbanger hatchback has more power than a 6.6L V8 from the 1970s

Are both vehicles NA or is the 4 banger having forced induction? Are we talking torque or HP at a very high RPM?

tbomachines · #57 11-18-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Are both vehicles NA or is the 4 banger having forced induction? Are we talking torque or HP at a very high RPM?

NA 6.6L vs. 2.0L turbo. Another comparison would be the "high performance" turbo V8 from those firebirds. 4.9L turbo 210hp, right about the same as my 2.0T. Admittedly 345lb/ft torque is higher than the 4cyl...after a simple ECU reflash it gets pretty damn close though. Direct injection is a wonder!

Edit/add: OTOH it shows how much turbo and DI technology have progressed. A turbo on a production musclecar engine was revolutionary back then, now everything high performance has a turbo on it and they are making gobs of power. My ultimate machine would have to be an R34 Skyline GT-R. The new ones are incredible (seen a few of them on the roads too) but I'm not a fan of the styling. Technologically they are a wonder.

Honus · #58 11-18-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?...

When I was in high school in the early 70s, gas prices shot up and people unloaded their gas guzzlers. I bought a beautiful 1965 Cadillac Coupe de Ville from my neighbor for $800. Sometimes if we got a day or two off from work, we would load up the Caddy and head for the George Washington National Forest in the Shenandoah Valley. While my buddies slept on the ground, I slept in complete comfort in the trunk of the Caddy. I used an inflatable boat for a mattress. That was probably the nicest car I will ever own. Caddy was on top back then.

elchivito · #59 11-18-2011, 06:43 PM

My big brother, in a rare period when he was making lots of money, bought a new 65 C. De Ville. White with red leather. On the way to the 68 prom, a drunk ran a red light and I T boned him in my 64 Plymouth Fury (383, factory Hurst 4 spd.). My girl and I unhurt after the dust settled, my brother took me out to the barn with quart of A1 Pilsener Beer, the AZ generic sudsy of the day. He made me chug about a third of it and handed me the keys to the Caddy and said get to the prom. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven driving that boat back into town to the prom.

neanderthal · #60 11-18-2011, 08:51 PM

modern design is a function of passenger and pedestrian safety, fuel efficiency, mod cons, space, etc etc etc.

Invariably, they will all look the same at some point as we strive for better efficiency figures, better pedestrian safety, etc etc etc.