On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:09:19 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/19/2009 23:00, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I seem to recall something about Rolls Royce using GM automatic
transmissions.


Possible. Jaguar did. I fellow I used to work with was restoring a Jag and
bough a lot of parts fromt he GM dealer at half the price fromthe Jag
dealer.



Friend used to own a Jaguar/MG dealership. Both were totally unreliable
vehicles because of the poor quality components they used. He was
constantly towing in new and relatively new Jaguars that broke down.
They were state owned for a long time. He told me about how he went over
to see the plants and they were still using antique/inefficient
equipment such as manually operated block and tackle etc to move
assemblies.

They've always been unreliable POS, like all Brittish cars. Fun to
drive but were like a jet fighter to maintain (30:1 maintenance:drive
hours). "Lucas: The inventor of dark."

At some point (maybe when they were denationalized) they started using
GM transmissions and Delco electrical and A/C components.

You mean after Ford bought them? ;-)

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:22:22 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:45:08 -0600, 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.

Yeah, that'd do it, I suppose. Our line's around 7-8' down and only goes
maybe 30' out to the well. Temp seems to stay pretty constant
year-round.

Because you're on a deep well not because the lines are down' 7-8'.
The ground temperature isn't constant (in northern climes) even 20'
down. OTOH, at 400', and in the water table, it will be fairly
constant. ;-)

Jules wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:00:40 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
I seem to recall something about Rolls Royce using GM automatic
transmissions.
Possible. Jaguar did.

And Jensen... far easier to buy a slushbox in from a country that
used them in the vast majority of vehicles, I suppose. Shame it
didn't work both ways and the US didn't import manual 'boxes from
Europe!


Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Jensen use MoPar power? Far more
likely in that case that they used the TF727 rather than try to make a
GM trans fit a Chrysler engine (although it's been done before; e.g.
65-66 Studebaker used special bellhousings to fit Studebaker/Ford
transmissions to GM engines...)

nate

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

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:16:16 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:00:40 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I seem to recall something about Rolls Royce using GM automatic
transmissions.

Possible. Jaguar did.

And Jensen... far easier to buy a slushbox in from a country that
used them in the vast majority of vehicles, I suppose. Shame it
didn't work both ways and the US didn't import manual 'boxes from
Europe!
The Jensen Innterceptor used Mopar power-train - engine and tranny.

ANd the Americans have imported a LOT of Euro manual gearboxes. Lots
of ZF bockes in recent American tin.

On 2009-12-20, Jules wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:38:46 -0800, Robatoy wrote:
with Saab. He had restored a two-stroke, that thing was a riot. It


Yeah, I can believe that. I've know quite a few folk with old Saabs, and
they were pretty reasonble cars.

Despite being in a couple sports car clubs, some as early as '58 (my
parents), I've never driven or seen a Saab 2-stroke up close (3 cyl,
no less!). The only time was in USAF boot camp in TX when we were
taking a 5 min ciggy break on the drill field. Slowly, in the
distance, we heard a gawdawful din slowly approaching. As it came
closer, still unseen, the volume and horrific noise steadily
increased. It sounded like a ...what? Army tank? Old diesel semi
hauling slop from the chow hall? Old Johnny Popper with bad cylinder.
Finally, the cacophony was so overwhelming, whole marching squads came
to a halt and every one of hundreds of heads and ears were turned in
the direction of the battlefield of thundering pops and bangs.
Slowly, an old rat Saab lumbered into view, about a hundred yards
away. Couldn't have been moving at more than 10 mph, but sounded like
an artillery barrage at its height. I think, for a second, I was the
only one who realized it was that 2 cycle Saab with no muffler
whatsoever. Hilarious.

nb

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:47:24 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
And Jensen... far easier to buy a slushbox in from a country that
used them in the vast majority of vehicles, I suppose. Shame it
didn't work both ways and the US didn't import manual 'boxes from
Europe!

Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't Jensen use MoPar power? Far more
likely in that case that they used the TF727 rather than try to make a
GM trans fit a Chrysler engine

Yes, my bad - I don't know why I was remembering it as a GM 'box!

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:18:09 -0600, krw wrote:
Friend used to own a Jaguar/MG dealership. Both were totally unreliable
vehicles because of the poor quality components they used. He was
constantly towing in new and relatively new Jaguars that broke down.
They were state owned for a long time. He told me about how he went over
to see the plants and they were still using antique/inefficient
equipment such as manually operated block and tackle etc to move
assemblies.

They've always been unreliable POS, like all Brittish cars. Fun to
drive but were like a jet fighter to maintain (30:1 maintenance:drive
hours).

Yeah, my Triumphs were like that sometimes - until I'd sorted out the
problems that should have originally been done by the designers and
builders. After doing that they were no worse than anything else from the
time; plugs and points and lights and brakes...

Some of the cosmetic stuff is pretty bad - plastic window switches
that acquire a gray film, ****ty "muck metal" Mazak that corrodes and pits
- but stuff like that I suppose the desigers just didn't know would happen
30 years later.

"Lucas: The inventor of dark."

I'll stick my neck out: I don't think Lucas were that bad. What got them
the rep was bad design in terms of component placement within the vehicle
(assemblies subjected to vibration or road debris or being cooked by the
engine), and that a lot of the vehicles that used them came from plants
with very poor quality control - the result was that they'd let moisture
in, and moisture will kill electrics in no time...

I've owned several vehicles with Lucas parts and I've never had much
trouble - but I've adjusted panels so they fit better, sorted out
seals, moved things around so they don't get slowly roasted etc.

cheers

Jules

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:07:22 -0600, krw wrote:
Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.

Yes, but they make up for it by often costing a small fortune when
something *does* go wrong...

Not so much now. It's not like the '80s with the GM "computer
controlled" carburetors. I had to replace all of the spark coils (two
at a time - they wouldn't replace them all the first time) on the '00
Sable. It was a couple of hundred each time, but that's not so bad.

Well, I suppose a lot of the cost these days is in the labor to fix it, so
if you can do stuff yourself you save a lot - but the parts on more modern
vehicles that do go wrong always seem to be more complicated and therefore
more expensive to me.

... plus I like keeping it simple; if something does go wrong when I'm
out in the middle of nowhere, there's more chance I can fix it by the
roadside in an older vehicle than a modern one. I like that safety and
convenience.

The more chance you'll have to. I *like* fuel injection and all of
that. The only repairs I've ever had to make to a fuel injection system
was a leaking distribution rail in my Vision and that was under a
(silent) recall.

I have issues with any computer-controlled stuff, though. If it was
accessible, they gave me full schematics and a copy of the firmware then I
wouldn't mind; I can fix it myself if it does break. But I really don't
like stuff that's "black boxed" like that and considered not to be field
servicable.

Agreed on the "mechanical" side of FI, though - definitely better than a
carb (although I've stripped and restored a few carbs now and they're not
too bad and *should* work for a long time before they next need to be
messed with).

My '78 Granada went through at least a carb a year.

How come? Was that a known bad design, or was something else causing the
failure (the fuel used, lack of fuel line filter etc.)? I suppose it does
matter how many miles you were putting on it, but I'd expect a good carb
to go for close on 100k miles before needing major surgery.

(I'm starting to feel sorry for all these woodworking folk putting up with
this thread :-)

cheers

Jules

wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:16:16 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:00:40 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
I seem to recall something about Rolls Royce using GM automatic
transmissions.
Possible. Jaguar did.
And Jensen... far easier to buy a slushbox in from a country that
used them in the vast majority of vehicles, I suppose. Shame it
didn't work both ways and the US didn't import manual 'boxes from
Europe!
The Jensen Innterceptor used Mopar power-train - engine and tranny.

ANd the Americans have imported a LOT of Euro manual gearboxes. Lots
of ZF bockes in recent American tin.

That makes sense, there's not much of a market in the US for row it
yourself gearboxes. Although the Tremec TKO seems to be a good trans;
if I had the $$ I'd be looking into one of those for my Stude as it
seems to be one of the few 5-speeds available that's not a truck trans
and will handle the torque of a good V-8

nate

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

wrote:
When RR first started using the Hydramatic they thought they needed
to "clean it up a bit" so they did some modifications to bring it up
to RR standasrds - and it wouldn't shift worth squat. Apparently they
made some parts TOO SMOOTH. From then on they just used what "the
general" supplied - just like it went into a Chevy.

I guess GM had already put in a million man hours and spent a billion
on R&D?

Something like that. They had a tranny that worked pretty good for
several years by the time RR started using them. RR had planned on
using Hydramatic technology under licence, but found GM could build
them just fine.

For a while, I think, GM vehicles in the USA used transmissions
developed by GMH ("General Motors-Holden"; GM bought the "Holden"
company and kept that name as part of the new company name; the vehicles
are simply called "Holden") in Australia. Don't recall whether it was
the Hydramatic or another one.

I also read that the Pontiac G8 was in fact a rebadged Holden Commodore
from Australia.

Perce

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:05:22 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:07:22 -0600, krw wrote:
Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.

Yes, but they make up for it by often costing a small fortune when
something *does* go wrong...

Not so much now. It's not like the '80s with the GM "computer
controlled" carburetors. I had to replace all of the spark coils (two
at a time - they wouldn't replace them all the first time) on the '00
Sable. It was a couple of hundred each time, but that's not so bad.

Well, I suppose a lot of the cost these days is in the labor to fix it, so
if you can do stuff yourself you save a lot - but the parts on more modern
vehicles that do go wrong always seem to be more complicated and therefore
more expensive to me.

I've found that I spend *way* less on repairs over the life of a car
than I did 20 years ago. It's unusual for anything other than wear
parts (brakes, tires, etc.) to go bad anymore.

... plus I like keeping it simple; if something does go wrong when I'm
out in the middle of nowhere, there's more chance I can fix it by the
roadside in an older vehicle than a modern one. I like that safety and
convenience.

The more chance you'll have to. I *like* fuel injection and all of
that. The only repairs I've ever had to make to a fuel injection system
was a leaking distribution rail in my Vision and that was under a
(silent) recall.

I have issues with any computer-controlled stuff, though. If it was
accessible, they gave me full schematics and a copy of the firmware then I
wouldn't mind; I can fix it myself if it does break. But I really don't
like stuff that's "black boxed" like that and considered not to be field
servicable.

It doesn't break, though. I have no use for schematics or firmware.
I'm certainly not going to take the time to learn what makes it tick,
much less rewrite any of it.

Agreed on the "mechanical" side of FI, though - definitely better than a
carb (although I've stripped and restored a few carbs now and they're not
too bad and *should* work for a long time before they next need to be
messed with).

My '78 Granada went through at least a carb a year.

How come? Was that a known bad design, or was something else causing the
failure (the fuel used, lack of fuel line filter etc.)? I suppose it does
matter how many miles you were putting on it, but I'd expect a good carb
to go for close on 100k miles before needing major surgery.

I have no idea. It was a 1bbl Carter but couldn't even get the one
lung working right. Rebuilding it was a waste of time (they once
tried it four times in three months). They were cheap but being
without a car wasn't.

(I'm starting to feel sorry for all these woodworking folk putting up with
this thread :-)

That's why thread kills were invented.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:54:23 -0600, cjt wrote:
I've got a Saturn Astra that I bought recently. It's a horrible piece
of sh*t, IMHO. I don't expect to have it for long.

:-) I really did like the drivetrain and handling on my father's one - but
the styling (both exterior and interior) I could certainly live without,
and the inside had a horrible "cheapest possible" feel about it; I suspect
it won't age well at all.

I'm not sure where they got the 6-speed from, whether it was developed
in-house or bought in from somewhere else. It did good on mileage; my work
was about 50 miles away and a mixture of small twisty lanes (i.e. lots of
braking and acceleration) and then fast roads (used to keep it on 90-100)
and I could still average 40mpg out of it.

I think that's perhaps the one thing I do like about modern vehicles; they
do generally fare better in terms of fuel use...

cheers

Jules

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:05:22 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:07:22 -0600, krw wrote:
Definitely downhill on serviceability, but thankfully they require a
lot less.

Yes, but they make up for it by often costing a small fortune when
something *does* go wrong...

Not so much now. It's not like the '80s with the GM "computer
controlled" carburetors. I had to replace all of the spark coils (two
at a time - they wouldn't replace them all the first time) on the '00
Sable. It was a couple of hundred each time, but that's not so bad.

Well, I suppose a lot of the cost these days is in the labor to fix it, so
if you can do stuff yourself you save a lot - but the parts on more modern
vehicles that do go wrong always seem to be more complicated and therefore
more expensive to me.

... plus I like keeping it simple; if something does go wrong when I'm
out in the middle of nowhere, there's more chance I can fix it by the
roadside in an older vehicle than a modern one. I like that safety and
convenience.

The more chance you'll have to. I *like* fuel injection and all of
that. The only repairs I've ever had to make to a fuel injection system
was a leaking distribution rail in my Vision and that was under a
(silent) recall.

I have issues with any computer-controlled stuff, though. If it was
accessible, they gave me full schematics and a copy of the firmware then I
wouldn't mind; I can fix it myself if it does break. But I really don't
like stuff that's "black boxed" like that and considered not to be field
servicable.

Agreed on the "mechanical" side of FI, though - definitely better than a
carb (although I've stripped and restored a few carbs now and they're not
too bad and *should* work for a long time before they next need to be
messed with).

My '78 Granada went through at least a carb a year.

How come? Was that a known bad design, or was something else causing the
failure (the fuel used, lack of fuel line filter etc.)? I suppose it does
matter how many miles you were putting on it, but I'd expect a good carb
to go for close on 100k miles before needing major surgery.


Terrible carb, and most of the "rebuilts" were even worse.
(I'm starting to feel sorry for all these woodworking folk putting up with
this thread :-)

cheers

Jules

On 12/16/2009 11:39 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

This post is aimed at all you sinophobes out there.

I'm getting a little tired of hearing the complaint "___ is a piece of
****: what do you expect? It's made in China!".

[snip own post]

Omigod, what have I done?

Do I get some kind of prize for such a long thread? A discount on a.h.r
(or wreck) merchandise specials? A special mention at next year's
Usenetties?


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Do I get some kind of prize for such a long thread? A discount on a.h.r
(or wreck) merchandise specials? A special mention at next year's
Usenetties?

Your cabal dues will be increased 50% in 2010 for all the bytes used,
plus the appropriate carbon footprint tax ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 20, 6:34*pm, Swingman wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Do I get some kind of prize for such a long thread? A discount on a.h.r
(or wreck) merchandise specials? A special mention at next year's
Usenetties?

Your cabal dues will be increased 50% in 2010 for all the bytes used,
plus the appropriate carbon footprint tax ...

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I have not been around here for very long.... but long enough to know
that there is no cabal.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 4:26 am, Peter Huebner wrote:


And, talking of reliable European cars, I've known quite a few series 2
Volvos that cracked half a million kilometres ... 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. Currently
driving an 850 wagon and an XC70. Wonderful cars to drive, but lots of
little things go wrong all of the time :-(

I quite like the C30 Volvo. Ford's hands in things don't always turn
out bad.
The fact that a C30 fetches as much money as it does is a bit of a
****er considering that what it really *is*...is a Mazda 3.
I have owned Volvos in the past without any drama.

One of the worst lemons I ever had was an early-model Volvo P-1800. I made
a sharp u-turn one day and the wire from the distributor wrapped around the
steering and broke. The hose from the fuel filter leaked and the car caught
fire one day in a gas station. The Pirelli radial tires made the car waggle
like a duck at low speeds as the side walls flexed back and forth. A c-clip
in the window mechanism kept coming off and I became good at removing the
trim and replacing the clip.

Maybe the fact that the car was made in Scotland was a factor.

My next Volvo was a model 142, made (assembled, actually) in Halifax, Nova
Scotia -- I bought it duty free, with no accessories - not even a radio --
for $2000 brand new. It was more reliable but I finally sold it in Dayton,
OH when there was no Volvo dealership and no reliable repair shops that I
could find and the disk brakes started to seize up randomly.

On 12/20/2009 5:37 PM Robatoy spake thus:

On Dec 20, 6:34 pm, Swingman wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Do I get some kind of prize for such a long thread? A discount on a.h.r
(or wreck) merchandise specials? A special mention at next year's
Usenetties?

Your cabal dues will be increased 50% in 2010 for all the bytes used,
plus the appropriate carbon footprint tax ...

I have not been around here for very long.... but long enough to know
that there is no cabal.

Ah, but there is (and it's Top Sekrit).

Damn! I knew there'd be consequences ...


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet