Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


Some of the best cars I ever owned were early Mopars. I've owned 53,
57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, and now a 2002.

A real glutton for punishment I see.

Lew



Meh? My ideal driveway for "drive it forever" cars would be filled with
50's Studebakers, 60's MoPars, and 80's VWs.

Sadly, IMHO cars hve gone downhill since the 80's in terms of durability
and user serviceability.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"ktos" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.


I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his '56
Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car. Remember
the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every maker had
two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but never
anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like their style.

Were they using gear reduction starters that early?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2OBC2d93g

that's a GOOD sound!

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:10:36 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-18, Stormin Mormon wrote:


318 was a pain, I may still have my 12 point distributor
wrench. 9/16 was it?
Depends on the vehicle. I had a 318 in a 74 van. When the weather
became very hot (100+), specially after they took the lead out of gas,
it would ping badly going up a grade. I timed it by removing the
engine shroud, loosening the distibutor clamp nut, and adjusting the
distributor until the pinging ceased. All this while driving up said
grade, the distributor being a within easy reach of my right hand.

I remember my Mopars being very moisture sensetive. Even
knowing the module ground and all, somtimes they just didn't
want to start if there was some humidity around. Or rain the
day before.
I had this happen once. I removed the distibutor cap and saw it was
literally dripping moisture. I liberally sprayed it and the points
with WD40 and reassembled. Fired right up. The WD stands for water
displacement.

nb
The secret was to carry an extra "dual ballast resistor" in the glove
box for all the Mopars with the electronic ignition. I had several
go out and it was a 10 minute or less repair job.

TDD
My spare was always bolted to the firewall. Just move the plugs from
one to the other and away you go - to the parts store to replace the
"spare"

The ballast resistors that went bad on me were the open back units.
The sealed units seemed to last forever.

TDD

I was lead to believe that the problem was that when the weather was
bad, water would drip down the firewall at that point from the hood
and hit the very hot ceramic. I built a little "visor" above mine from
a piece of aluminum and it never failed.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:27:42 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Somebody wrote:
As long as we're bragging, my 1970 Ford Custom got 9mph.

'Course it had a police interceptor engine, a calibrated speedometer
up to
140, an 8-quart crankcase, and, believe it or not, a DELCO
alternator.


Police vehicle?

1970?

Delco alternator?

Very doubtful.

That was Leece-Neville business back then.

Lew


Could have been replaced with a Delco.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:04:52 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"ktos" wrote in message
.. .


My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.


I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his '56
Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car. Remember
the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every maker had
two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but never
anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like their style.

Their style has varied so much, and so often, that it's pretty hard
to say you don't like their style as a reason to have never owned one
and to say you never will.

I'll own another Chrysler long before I'll own another GM!!!!!

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:28 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


Some of the best cars I ever owned were early Mopars. I've owned 53,
57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, and now a 2002.

A real glutton for punishment I see.

Lew



Meh? My ideal driveway for "drive it forever" cars would be filled with
50's Studebakers, 60's MoPars, and 80's VWs.

Sadly, IMHO cars hve gone downhill since the 80's in terms of durability
and user serviceability.

nate

Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.
As far as durability? Yes, the old ones took more punishment - but
with minimal care, the new ones will outlast the old ones. No carbs to
screw up (or screw around with) No points to wear ot burn, stainless
exhausts and no phosphourous in the gas means mufflers and pipes often
last the life of the car - and rack and pinion steering means no
sloppy worn out steering boxes, idler arms, and pitman arms.

But yes, a Stude Golden Hawk, a '55 Chrysler 300, an early Paxon
Avanti, a 1953 or 54 Coronet Sierra and a matching Coronet Coupe, a
1966 Plymouth GTX, a '64 Fury convertible, a 69 SC Rambler,and a 68
AMX would all be in "the stable" for me. Oh - and a '53 starliner
coupe.
With perhaps a 55-56 T-Bird and a GT350 Shelby, and possibly a 59-61
Vette.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:46:46 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"ktos" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.


I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his '56
Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car. Remember
the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every maker had
two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but never
anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like their style.

Were they using gear reduction starters that early?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2OBC2d93g

that's a GOOD sound!

nate
Nope. Gear reduction starters came on the scene in the late sixties -
the "high park hummingbird"

You wanted something REALLY awfull sounding at startup, you wanted a
37 or 38 Terraplane.

Open bell housing, hunting gear set, and hydraulic lifters on a
flathead six. The starter howled like a banshee - you could hear it a
mile away on a cold still morning, and the lifters clattered for about
15 seconds on just about every start.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:47:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:10:36 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-18, Stormin Mormon wrote:


318 was a pain, I may still have my 12 point distributor
wrench. 9/16 was it?
Depends on the vehicle. I had a 318 in a 74 van. When the weather
became very hot (100+), specially after they took the lead out of gas,
it would ping badly going up a grade. I timed it by removing the
engine shroud, loosening the distibutor clamp nut, and adjusting the
distributor until the pinging ceased. All this while driving up said
grade, the distributor being a within easy reach of my right hand.

I remember my Mopars being very moisture sensetive. Even
knowing the module ground and all, somtimes they just didn't
want to start if there was some humidity around. Or rain the
day before.
I had this happen once. I removed the distibutor cap and saw it was
literally dripping moisture. I liberally sprayed it and the points
with WD40 and reassembled. Fired right up. The WD stands for water
displacement.

nb
The secret was to carry an extra "dual ballast resistor" in the glove
box for all the Mopars with the electronic ignition. I had several
go out and it was a 10 minute or less repair job.

TDD
My spare was always bolted to the firewall. Just move the plugs from
one to the other and away you go - to the parts store to replace the
"spare"

The ballast resistors that went bad on me were the open back units.
The sealed units seemed to last forever.

TDD

I was lead to believe that the problem was that when the weather was
bad, water would drip down the firewall at that point from the hood
and hit the very hot ceramic. I built a little "visor" above mine from
a piece of aluminum and it never failed.
That definitely contributed - but even sealed (high quality
aftermarket) resistors failed - and even in arizona and southern
alberta where rain is a once a year anomoly.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:42:58 +1300, Peter Huebner
wrote:

In article , sails.man2
says...

Somebody wrote:

Now that Ford are
messing with the Volvo design I think that will not be the case any
more, I won't buy another Volvo designed & built since 2006.

FoMoCo wasn't too shabby in the way they cleaned up Jaguar.

Lew

Yes, I understand things at BMC went pretty ****ty for a long time.

But:
To give you an example: the straight5 Volvo engines at 2 or 2.4 litres
with a turbo are great. Quite economical, and capable to turning a 2t
brick ****house of a car into a 'pocket rocket'. I start overtaking some
slow-poke at 50mph, by the time I pass his bonnet I'm doing 75mph and
that's without taking a run-up or anything.

Now Ford/Volvo has seen fit as of 2007 to put a petrol guzzling 3.2
litre engine into the new XC70ies. It doesn't fscking NEED that, it'll
just be a drain on the wallet ... and quite possibly not as good a
motor.

I don't like Ford any more. They sold me what turned out to be a Ford-
rebadged Shibaura tractor, made from crap steel that rotted like
nobody's business within a few years. Some friends drove a Ford-rebadged
Mazda that spent more time in the shop than on the road ... nah. My
local mechanic says the more recent Ford engines are crap in his
opinion, and I won't argue.

f.w.i.w.

If they're going to start reselling Mazdas rebadged as Volvos, then I
might as well go and buy Japanese at half the price in the first place;
hell, I can buy 3 Korean 'luxury vehicles' for the price of one Volvo
for that matter, plus, I'd go Toyota over Mazda any old day of the week.

Anyhow, getting way off topic here now ;-)

-P.
Toyota and Honda are about tie at the top of the Japanese list, with
Mazda a distant but rizing third - Subaru holding onto 4th and Nissan
a more distant 5th, and Mitsu****ty digging themselves out of last
place. Somewhere down close to the bottom you have Suzuki bouncing
around too.

On the world market Daihatsu holds a pretty good position too.

Then there's the Koreans - Definitely coming up fast after Toyota and
Honda's lunch!!!!!

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:37:13 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
. ..
Somebody wrote:

Now that Ford are
messing with the Volvo design I think that will not be the case any
more, I won't buy another Volvo designed & built since 2006.

FoMoCo wasn't too shabby in the way they cleaned up Jaguar.

Lew





And GM is cleaning up Saab ...
With a broom and a dustpan???

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:28 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


Some of the best cars I ever owned were early Mopars. I've owned 53,
57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, and now a 2002.
A real glutton for punishment I see.

Lew


Meh? My ideal driveway for "drive it forever" cars would be filled with
50's Studebakers, 60's MoPars, and 80's VWs.

Sadly, IMHO cars hve gone downhill since the 80's in terms of durability
and user serviceability.

nate

Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.
As far as durability? Yes, the old ones took more punishment - but
with minimal care, the new ones will outlast the old ones. No carbs to
screw up (or screw around with) No points to wear ot burn, stainless
exhausts and no phosphourous in the gas means mufflers and pipes often
last the life of the car - and rack and pinion steering means no
sloppy worn out steering boxes, idler arms, and pitman arms.

But yes, a Stude Golden Hawk, a '55 Chrysler 300, an early Paxon
Avanti, a 1953 or 54 Coronet Sierra and a matching Coronet Coupe, a
1966 Plymouth GTX, a '64 Fury convertible, a 69 SC Rambler,and a 68
AMX would all be in "the stable" for me. Oh - and a '53 starliner
coupe.
With perhaps a 55-56 T-Bird and a GT350 Shelby, and possibly a 59-61
Vette.


Heh, my Studebaker has a full stainless exhaust from Silvertone and the
distributor has been retrofitted with a Chrysler ignition pickup (used a
'63-64 style Prestolite) also just picked up a freshly rebuilt steering
box (the big, ugly Saginaw power thing - have pretty much given up
trying to find a good manual box) for $300 a couple weeks ago

Now I just need to finish the darn thing, but I'm guessing that 245/60s
and 12" of snow (and falling) don't mix well

If you're gonna get a t-bird, get a '57 with the whirly thing, and the
3-speed stick. I'm definitely a Paxton fan

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:53:28 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:46:02 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "LDosser"
wrote:

I had several with the 225 slant six and one with the 318. Did most of my
own work on them and all tune ups. Only thing I didn't like was setting
the
points on the slant six (exhaust header burns on fore arm)
That'd be a pretty neat trick, considering that the distributor on a
slant-six
is half-way down the block on the passenger side, and the exhaust manifold
is
all the way at the top of the engine on the driver's side. You'd think
that
someone who'd done all that work on a slant-six would know where the
distributor is.

Long arms. They say memory is the first to go ... Anyone know what the hell
I was burning myself on?

The edge of the rocker cover and the side of the cyl head. Or the oil
filter.

I ALWAYS pulled the distributor to do points on Slant Sixes. ALWAYS
set to #1 TDC first too. And I did a LOT of them.

My 170 always had the points set on a distributor machine to be sure
there was no bounce or float at 6500 RPM - always used the Blue Streak
High Performance points - the only kind that wouldn't either bounce,
float, or break the spring. (206 RWHP through the push-button
automatic at 6000 RPM ( 60+ in first, 90+ in second, and bury the
speedo in third)
It's the only car I've ever owned that I could redline in top gear.

I built a 170 slant six that came out of a 64 Valiant and dropped it in
a 65 Dart. I installed a 3/4 race cam and found the biggest one barrel
Holly carburetor I could find and that car would do 60 in first and 100
in second by holding the shifter in gear. It blew the stock muffler off
so I installed one of those Thrush mufflers. I replaced the little 13"
wheels with a set of 14 inchers and found a set of Firestone Grand Prix
radial tires and a set of heavy duty shocks. I had to beat the lip of
the front fenders out a little so the tires wouldn't rub. The car would
take a corner so hard that it snapped a front hub out of a brake drum.
At a wrecking yard, I found these huge finned drums and spindles on a
V8 Dart and installed those which solved the breakage and braking
problem. The car had a single master cylinder, ditched that and got
a dual master cylinder from a van. What I loved about my Mopars is that
I could get parts from different models and mix and match. It was a lot
of fun. It's been about four decades since I had that six cylinder
terror but I miss it more than any of them.

TDD
Mine was in a '63 Valiant V100 Custom 4 door sedan. The rear springs
were sagged so I lowered the front torsion bars to level it and put in
the optional heavy duty shocks from the V* Formula S Cuda. Cornered
like it was on rails. Didn't matter what I put on it for exhaust,
within a week it sounded loud again - My parents could always hear me
coming down the hill into town unless I put it in neutral and let it
coast. Bottom end accelleration was pretty slow, but from 30 MPH
(about 3500RPM) up it was hard to catch!!! C70 13 tires handled the
road reasonably well - with studded snows in the winter.

Kid brother did up a 225 in a 65, with 2 barrel and split exhaust and
a fancy cam, 40 thou over, and it would burn rubber on takeoff, but
was about 20% slower at the top end. 104MPH was wound tight (about
5000 RPM)

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:07:55 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:28 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


Some of the best cars I ever owned were early Mopars. I've owned 53,
57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, and now a 2002.

A real glutton for punishment I see.

Lew



Meh? My ideal driveway for "drive it forever" cars would be filled with
50's Studebakers, 60's MoPars, and 80's VWs.

Sadly, IMHO cars hve gone downhill since the 80's in terms of durability
and user serviceability.

nate

Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.

I've had vehicles where I could climb right into the engine
compartment to work on them.

These people talking about old cars being more durable must be
youngsters. In the 1950's and 1960's, a car that lasted 100k and
remained in pretty good shape was a bit rare and worth mentioning.
Nowadays, you can buy a bottom of the line Toyota Corolla and expect
that if you keep up with oil changes, it will go 200K without major
trouble - and the body will still be intact.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:13:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:47:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:10:36 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-18, Stormin Mormon wrote:


318 was a pain, I may still have my 12 point distributor
wrench. 9/16 was it?
Depends on the vehicle. I had a 318 in a 74 van. When the weather
became very hot (100+), specially after they took the lead out of gas,
it would ping badly going up a grade. I timed it by removing the
engine shroud, loosening the distibutor clamp nut, and adjusting the
distributor until the pinging ceased. All this while driving up said
grade, the distributor being a within easy reach of my right hand.

I remember my Mopars being very moisture sensetive. Even
knowing the module ground and all, somtimes they just didn't
want to start if there was some humidity around. Or rain the
day before.
I had this happen once. I removed the distibutor cap and saw it was
literally dripping moisture. I liberally sprayed it and the points
with WD40 and reassembled. Fired right up. The WD stands for water
displacement.

nb
The secret was to carry an extra "dual ballast resistor" in the glove
box for all the Mopars with the electronic ignition. I had several
go out and it was a 10 minute or less repair job.

TDD
My spare was always bolted to the firewall. Just move the plugs from
one to the other and away you go - to the parts store to replace the
"spare"

The ballast resistors that went bad on me were the open back units.
The sealed units seemed to last forever.

TDD

I was lead to believe that the problem was that when the weather was
bad, water would drip down the firewall at that point from the hood
and hit the very hot ceramic. I built a little "visor" above mine from
a piece of aluminum and it never failed.
That definitely contributed - but even sealed (high quality
aftermarket) resistors failed - and even in arizona and southern
alberta where rain is a once a year anomoly.

I was in New England. I never had one go bad, but I always figured it
was because of the improvised visor I installed over the resistor when
I first got the car.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:18:54 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:37:13 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
.. .
Somebody wrote:

Now that Ford are
messing with the Volvo design I think that will not be the case any
more, I won't buy another Volvo designed & built since 2006.

FoMoCo wasn't too shabby in the way they cleaned up Jaguar.

Lew





And GM is cleaning up Saab ...
With a broom and a dustpan???

GM has announced the demise of Saab. The last possible deal to save it
failed. Saab long enjoyed a hardcore following of fanatics. They took
a seriously wrong turn and lost them all. The car lost it's cachet.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:23:47 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:28 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


Some of the best cars I ever owned were early Mopars. I've owned 53,
57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, and now a 2002.
A real glutton for punishment I see.

Lew


Meh? My ideal driveway for "drive it forever" cars would be filled with
50's Studebakers, 60's MoPars, and 80's VWs.

Sadly, IMHO cars hve gone downhill since the 80's in terms of durability
and user serviceability.

nate

Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.
As far as durability? Yes, the old ones took more punishment - but
with minimal care, the new ones will outlast the old ones. No carbs to
screw up (or screw around with) No points to wear ot burn, stainless
exhausts and no phosphourous in the gas means mufflers and pipes often
last the life of the car - and rack and pinion steering means no
sloppy worn out steering boxes, idler arms, and pitman arms.

But yes, a Stude Golden Hawk, a '55 Chrysler 300, an early Paxon
Avanti, a 1953 or 54 Coronet Sierra and a matching Coronet Coupe, a
1966 Plymouth GTX, a '64 Fury convertible, a 69 SC Rambler,and a 68
AMX would all be in "the stable" for me. Oh - and a '53 starliner
coupe.
With perhaps a 55-56 T-Bird and a GT350 Shelby, and possibly a 59-61
Vette.


Heh, my Studebaker has a full stainless exhaust from Silvertone and the
distributor has been retrofitted with a Chrysler ignition pickup (used a
'63-64 style Prestolite) also just picked up a freshly rebuilt steering
box (the big, ugly Saginaw power thing - have pretty much given up
trying to find a good manual box) for $300 a couple weeks ago

Now I just need to finish the darn thing, but I'm guessing that 245/60s
and 12" of snow (and falling) don't mix well

If you're gonna get a t-bird, get a '57 with the whirly thing, and the
3-speed stick. I'm definitely a Paxton fan

nate

Oh, I dunno. I think the 56 T-Bird was the best looking of the lot.
They weren't really performance cars, so looks trump everythng else
for them.

wrote in message

Their style has varied so much, and so often, that it's pretty hard
to say you don't like their style as a reason to have never owned one
and to say you never will.

I'll own another Chrysler long before I'll own another GM!!!!!

Varied does not mean pleasing to my eyes in any variation. The Stratus was
not so bad and I even drove a rental on a trip, but I never cared for
anything else and did not like the Stratus enough to by one. Never cared for
the Dodge Charger that so many guys fawned over. The group they have now is
just plain ugly, IMO. Obviously, others like them or they never would have
made it out of the factory.

I like GM style, but that is about all they offer these days. I have a
deteriorating Buick in my driveway that I liked for the first 30,000 miles,
but things started going wrong. Best quality and most trouble free car I've
ever owned was my '07 Hyundai Sonata with 67,000 trouble free miles. Only
maintenance was 2 tires and oil changes. I just bought a '10 last week.
It will the last of the V-6 on Sonata.

Cheapest car I've ever bought was a '64 Karman Ghia convertible in 1975.
Paid $15 for it. Worth every penny too.

Best resale value was a '64 Pontiac Tempest. Paid $100 for it, drove it for
a year, sold it back to the original owner for $100.

Most fun car was a '62 Corvair

Most expensive to both buy and maintain was '83 a Mercedes 300D

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:07:55 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:38:28 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


Some of the best cars I ever owned were early Mopars. I've owned 53,
57, 63, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, and now a 2002.
A real glutton for punishment I see.

Lew


Meh? My ideal driveway for "drive it forever" cars would be filled with
50's Studebakers, 60's MoPars, and 80's VWs.

Sadly, IMHO cars hve gone downhill since the 80's in terms of durability
and user serviceability.

nate
Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.

I've had vehicles where I could climb right into the engine
compartment to work on them.

These people talking about old cars being more durable must be
youngsters. In the 1950's and 1960's, a car that lasted 100k and
remained in pretty good shape was a bit rare and worth mentioning.
Nowadays, you can buy a bottom of the line Toyota Corolla and expect
that if you keep up with oil changes, it will go 200K without major
trouble - and the body will still be intact.


My dad's '67 Cutlass had about 300K miles on it when he scrapped it -
and it still drove OK, but the frame was rusted above the rear axle.
Probably due to having been used in western PA its entire life.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

wrote in message

GM has announced the demise of Saab. The last possible deal to save it
failed. Saab long enjoyed a hardcore following of fanatics. They took
a seriously wrong turn and lost them all. The car lost it's cachet.


Exactly. Just another car.
Used to be, you could differentiate car brands from 5 miles by seeing a tiny
speck of the body outline. Or a glimpse of a taillight. Today, you have to
walk up to them and read the nameplate to tell a Camry from a Caterra. Saab
stood out. No longer though. It would take quite an investment and major
style change to bring back a low volume brand.

Maybe they could bring back the 3 cylinder 2 cycle engine though.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:18:54 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:37:13 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
.. .
Somebody wrote:

Now that Ford are
messing with the Volvo design I think that will not be the case any
more, I won't buy another Volvo designed & built since 2006.

FoMoCo wasn't too shabby in the way they cleaned up Jaguar.

Lew





And GM is cleaning up Saab ...
With a broom and a dustpan???

Tidy Bowl.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:04:43 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-18, Lew wrote:

Still gets 25 MPG.

My old '62 Dodge Lancer with slant six and AT got 22mph on highway.


As long as we're bragging, my 1970 Ford Custom got 9mph.

'Course it had a police interceptor engine, a calibrated speedometer up to
140, an 8-quart crankcase, and, believe it or not, a DELCO alternator.
Hi,
So visiting every gas station along the way. More time spent filling up
than driving, Eh?!

The only thing the car couldn't pass was a gas station.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:04:52 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"ktos" wrote in message
.. .


My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.


I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his '56
Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car. Remember
the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every maker had
two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but never
anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like their style.

I loved the practicality of their minivans and the styling of the
original Intrepid class. All were junk. Never again. We both drive
Fords now (Mercury Sable and a Ranger) and I've been told our next car
is going to be a Mustang convertible, so...

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:27:42 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Somebody wrote:
As long as we're bragging, my 1970 Ford Custom got 9mph.

'Course it had a police interceptor engine, a calibrated speedometer
up to
140, an 8-quart crankcase, and, believe it or not, a DELCO
alternator.

Police vehicle?

1970?

Delco alternator?

Very doubtful.

That was Leece-Neville business back then.

Lew


Could have been replaced with a Delco.


Leece-Neville and Delco alternators in that size for an automobile
engine resemble each other if you don't look closely. Back in the
70's GM, Ford and Mopar alternators and AC compressors were quite
distinctive. I hardly recognize them these days without a hard look.
I think Chrysler started putting Asian alternators and compressors
on its vehicles some years ago.

TDD

On 2009-12-18, HeyBub wrote:

As long as we're bragging, my 1970 Ford Custom got 9mph.

Weirdest deal was my '91 Ford Econoline 150 van with 4.9L straight 6
w/ fuel injection and overdrive. When I lived in CA, near sea level,
the best I could avg was 18-19mpg babying the go pedal to keep it
below 62mph. Moved to CO (where the van was originally sold) and I
could get 23-24mpg running at 70-75mph. Go figure. Too bad I put it
into a tree on the outside of an icy turn.

nb

Nate Nagel wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"ktos" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.


I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his
'56 Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car.
Remember the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every
maker had two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but
never anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like
their style.

Were they using gear reduction starters that early?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2OBC2d93g

that's a GOOD sound!

nate




The Mopar gear reduction starters drew a lot less current from
the battery if I remember correctly. A low battery would start
a Dart with a slant six but wouldn't start a Falcon with a six.

TDD

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:53:28 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:46:02 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "LDosser"
wrote:

I had several with the 225 slant six and one with the 318. Did most of my
own work on them and all tune ups. Only thing I didn't like was setting
the
points on the slant six (exhaust header burns on fore arm)
That'd be a pretty neat trick, considering that the distributor on a
slant-six
is half-way down the block on the passenger side, and the exhaust manifold
is
all the way at the top of the engine on the driver's side. You'd think
that
someone who'd done all that work on a slant-six would know where the
distributor is.
Long arms. They say memory is the first to go ... Anyone know what the hell
I was burning myself on?
The edge of the rocker cover and the side of the cyl head. Or the oil
filter.

I ALWAYS pulled the distributor to do points on Slant Sixes. ALWAYS
set to #1 TDC first too. And I did a LOT of them.

My 170 always had the points set on a distributor machine to be sure
there was no bounce or float at 6500 RPM - always used the Blue Streak
High Performance points - the only kind that wouldn't either bounce,
float, or break the spring. (206 RWHP through the push-button
automatic at 6000 RPM ( 60+ in first, 90+ in second, and bury the
speedo in third)
It's the only car I've ever owned that I could redline in top gear.
I built a 170 slant six that came out of a 64 Valiant and dropped it in
a 65 Dart. I installed a 3/4 race cam and found the biggest one barrel
Holly carburetor I could find and that car would do 60 in first and 100
in second by holding the shifter in gear. It blew the stock muffler off
so I installed one of those Thrush mufflers. I replaced the little 13"
wheels with a set of 14 inchers and found a set of Firestone Grand Prix
radial tires and a set of heavy duty shocks. I had to beat the lip of
the front fenders out a little so the tires wouldn't rub. The car would
take a corner so hard that it snapped a front hub out of a brake drum.
At a wrecking yard, I found these huge finned drums and spindles on a
V8 Dart and installed those which solved the breakage and braking
problem. The car had a single master cylinder, ditched that and got
a dual master cylinder from a van. What I loved about my Mopars is that
I could get parts from different models and mix and match. It was a lot
of fun. It's been about four decades since I had that six cylinder
terror but I miss it more than any of them.

TDD
Mine was in a '63 Valiant V100 Custom 4 door sedan. The rear springs
were sagged so I lowered the front torsion bars to level it and put in
the optional heavy duty shocks from the V* Formula S Cuda. Cornered
like it was on rails. Didn't matter what I put on it for exhaust,
within a week it sounded loud again - My parents could always hear me
coming down the hill into town unless I put it in neutral and let it
coast. Bottom end accelleration was pretty slow, but from 30 MPH
(about 3500RPM) up it was hard to catch!!! C70 13 tires handled the
road reasonably well - with studded snows in the winter.

Kid brother did up a 225 in a 65, with 2 barrel and split exhaust and
a fancy cam, 40 thou over, and it would burn rubber on takeoff, but
was about 20% slower at the top end. 104MPH was wound tight (about
5000 RPM)

That 170 was a short stroke screamer, it would turn high RPMs all day
long and refused to die.

TDD

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:35:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"ktos" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.


I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his
'56 Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car.
Remember the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every
maker had two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but
never anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like
their style.

Were they using gear reduction starters that early?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2OBC2d93g

that's a GOOD sound!

nate




The Mopar gear reduction starters drew a lot less current from
the battery if I remember correctly. A low battery would start
a Dart with a slant six but wouldn't start a Falcon with a six.

I found it didn't make much of a difference. The engine has to turn a
certain RPM to get a start thus a gear reduction starter (they all
are, really) had to turn faster to turn the engine over. In any case,
starting the car in cold weather is just as much function of engine
(et. al.) maintenance as it is the battery.

On 2009-12-19, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Cheapest car I've ever bought was a '64 Karman Ghia convertible in 1975.
Paid $15 for it. Worth every penny too.

We've seen most every brand represented but American Motors. In '73 I
bought a '60 Rambler American 2-dr with a brand new rebuilt flathead
straight six (1-barrel!) for $25. It was one of the most enjoyable
cars I've ever owned. Drove it for 5 yrs without a single problem.
Cruised effortlessly at 75mph and got 23mpg. When I bought it, it had
no driver's side window, yet the snowy OR Winters were no match for
the heater which would keep the interior at bread baking temps at
65mph in 20 deg F weather. It was 2 yrs before I got around to
replacing the window. If I could find a '60 station wagon version in
good shape, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

http://jalopnik.com/5288930/1960-ram...merican-custom

nb

On 2009-12-19, wrote:

The "Fifth Avenue" was a Chrysler.
Buick's was the "Park Avenue"

DOH!

I should have caught that, having once owned a Chrysler 5th Ave (for
as it took me to sell it!).

nb

wrote:


-snip-

These people talking about old cars being more durable must be
youngsters. In the 1950's and 1960's, a car that lasted 100k and
remained in pretty good shape was a bit rare and worth mentioning.

And it needed points & condenser every 2500 miles, distributor cap
every 10k, plugs 5-10K?, plug wires in 20k, oil & filter change every
3K, tires that lasted 20K were a miracle. . . . and it cost more to
buy one in real money.

Nowadays, you can buy a bottom of the line Toyota Corolla and expect
that if you keep up with oil changes, it will go 200K without major
trouble - and the body will still be intact.

My daughter's 98 Grand Am just cracked the 200K mark-- and that little
4banger sounds and acts like a new one. And the body-- well, we
have replaced a fender that taught her not to drive too fast in the
snow- but other than that the body has been fine. Pretty good for a
car that spent its life in New York.

I remember having to have my 63 Impala painted in 1970 because the
body was covered in rust holes. And I was impressed that the 283 was
still good at 90k when the transmission died.

Yeah- they don't make 'em like they used to . . . and it is a good
thing they don't.

Jim

On 2009-12-19, LDosser wrote:

And GM is cleaning up Saab ...

Did Saab really fall THAT FAR!?

My parents owned (later passed dwn to me) a '68 Saab Monte Carlo w/
the Ford designed V-4 engine. I've owned and driven a lot of GM iron
and have never seen anything even in the same parallel universe as
good as that old Saab. A brilliant car.

nb

krw wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:35:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"ktos" wrote in message
...
My next door neighbor has 2 Chryslers. Both cars sound like bombs
exploding when they start their cars.

I can still remember back in the 50's hearing our neighbor start his
'56 Dodge. It was a godawful sound very fitting for such an ugly car.
Remember the three-tone paint jobs available back then? Most every
maker had two-tone, but Dodge had to top them with three.

Over the past 48 years, I've owned many different brands of car, but
never anything from Chrysler. Nor will I ever. I still don't like
their style.
Were they using gear reduction starters that early?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2OBC2d93g

that's a GOOD sound!

nate



The Mopar gear reduction starters drew a lot less current from
the battery if I remember correctly. A low battery would start
a Dart with a slant six but wouldn't start a Falcon with a six.

I found it didn't make much of a difference. The engine has to turn a
certain RPM to get a start thus a gear reduction starter (they all
are, really) had to turn faster to turn the engine over. In any case,
starting the car in cold weather is just as much function of engine
(et. al.) maintenance as it is the battery.

I do remember the battery connections being very critical on those
Falcons. I can remember replacing the factory installed Mopar
starter and the new one having a different gear ratio that spun the
engine faster. I believe that was because the newer vehicles with
all of the bolt on emission controls needed a faster cranking speed.
It was interesting to turn the key and not hear the classic Mopar groan.

TDD

notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-19, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Cheapest car I've ever bought was a '64 Karman Ghia convertible in 1975.
Paid $15 for it. Worth every penny too.

We've seen most every brand represented but American Motors. In '73 I
bought a '60 Rambler American 2-dr with a brand new rebuilt flathead
straight six (1-barrel!) for $25. It was one of the most enjoyable
cars I've ever owned. Drove it for 5 yrs without a single problem.
Cruised effortlessly at 75mph and got 23mpg. When I bought it, it had
no driver's side window, yet the snowy OR Winters were no match for
the heater which would keep the interior at bread baking temps at
65mph in 20 deg F weather. It was 2 yrs before I got around to
replacing the window. If I could find a '60 station wagon version in
good shape, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

http://jalopnik.com/5288930/1960-ram...merican-custom

nb


I think my dad had one of those for a while and when I was in college,
he got a Rambler wagon. It was an interesting car, the vacuum advance
rotated the whole distributer on the six cylinder engine and the doors
had double seals which made for a remarkable lack of wind noise while
zipping down the highway at 70mph.

TDD

On 2009-12-19, wrote:

He likely knows it is rare and is asking too much. They had the
gutless little Typhoon F-Head 4 cyl in them.

I suspected road speed might have been another factor in its not
selling. Kinda like the very nice '52 Chevy p/u I owned and finally
sold due to it's 5.16:1 rear end that made 55mph a stretch. The
F-head (Hurricane) no doubt makes it even more rare, the only time
I've even seen one of these bizarre hermaphrodite engines being in our
HS auto shop, back when I didn't know a valve stem from a king pin.

nb

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2009-12-19, wrote:

The "Fifth Avenue" was a Chrysler.
Buick's was the "Park Avenue"

DOH!

I should have caught that, having once owned a Chrysler 5th Ave (for
as it took me to sell it!).

nb

The only 5th Avenue worth buying is the candy bar, IMO.

On 2009-12-19, The Daring Dufas wrote:

had double seals which made for a remarkable lack of wind noise while
zipping down the highway at 70mph.

Yep. They were, above all, comfortable. Big ol' bench seats, perfect
ergonomics ....which seem damn near impossible anymore in this
multi-national world market.... few simple controls, killer radio,
Harley-like torque, etc. I'd liken them to a US version of the
beetle, only more comfortable and highway worthy.

nb

On 2009-12-19, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The only 5th Avenue worth buying is the candy bar, IMO.

LOL! ....agreed.

I got it free and sold it as soon as I got it running. I wasn't into
tuna-boats yet (which came later, with age), being a young turk and
sports car and motorcycle aficionado, then.

nb

On Dec 19, 12:01*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-19, LDosser wrote:

And GM is cleaning up Saab ...

Did Saab really fall THAT FAR!?

My parents owned (later passed dwn to me) a '68 Saab Monte Carlo w/
the Ford designed V-4 engine. *I've owned and driven a lot of GM iron
and have never seen anything even in the same parallel universe as
good as that old Saab. *A brilliant car.

nb *


I have played. wrenched, hated and enjoyed a whole myriad of european
cars. When I lived in Toronto, I had a garage with a full-size pit.
(The next owner had to have it filled, residential bylaws and all that
****) A lot of co-workers and friends used it to change their oil and
worked on brakes, mufflers etc. One such co-worker had a love affair
with Saab. He had restored a two-stroke, that thing was a riot. It
went like stink (I think that's where the phrase originated as it
smelled quite bit with castrol racing oil in the gas) He and his wife
drove new Saabs and I had the pleasure to drive those magnificent cars
on more than one occasion.
For the longest time, Saabs would give Audis, MiniCoopers and Volvo a
pretty good run on the Rallye circuit.
Great cars and a crying shame to see them go. A shame to see Saturn
get reduced to Opels and then dropped altogether. A shame to see
Pontiac get dropped as well...although not so much.
I have, for sale, a 1996 Saturn SC1 with 270,000 KM on it... all it
ever needed was 2 sets of tires and a brake job. Always starts, A/C
always cold, never a problem. Never. The interior.. well it is kinda
falling apart, seats are shot etc.

notbob wrote:
On 2009-12-19, The Daring Dufas wrote:

had double seals which made for a remarkable lack of wind noise while
zipping down the highway at 70mph.

Yep. They were, above all, comfortable. Big ol' bench seats, perfect
ergonomics ....which seem damn near impossible anymore in this
multi-national world market.... few simple controls, killer radio,
Harley-like torque, etc. I'd liken them to a US version of the
beetle, only more comfortable and highway worthy.

nb

If I remember, the darn seats reclined enough to make it a bed!
Made it a heck of a date car, lots of faces slapped. *snicker*

TDD

krw wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:25:17 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:51:01 -0600, Leon wrote:
"hot" water heater? I only need a "water heater". ;!) Iknow, I
know, it reheats relatively hot water, but would a hot water heater work
if it were full of cold water?

Define "cold". My water comes out of the ground at a pretty much constant
55 degrees year-round, and that's considerably hotter than freezing ;-)

Mine sure doesn't. There is a big change in the shower handle
position between summer and winter. When I lived in VT we were lucky
it came out liquid in the winter. ;-) The frost line often went down
7' and not all water lines did. Since we had a domestic hot water
coil in the boiler, the hot water temperature varied quite a lot too.

Same here. But ours isn't due to ground temperature, but the storage
temperature of the water tanks. During the summer, don't need much hot
water at all for a shower, during the winter, we need to turn down the cold
water considerably.

If the water is coming out of a well, then the temperature is going to be
pretty constant year-round. In general, that means cold. When I was
growing up, I'd see pictures of kids on TV running through sprinklers having
a grand old time. I'd try that (on a farm with well water) and I'd last for
a couple dashes through the water before I had to give up. I think our
water was about 60 degrees. It wasn't fun.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham