On 8/14/2015 10:32 AM, Leon wrote:

That is entirely possible/likely. IIRC GM adopted the Torx in 1975.
Seat belt bolts were also some heavy duty applications of the Torx
screw. And for what that is worth, they may have been around earlier
than 1975 for GM however not for replacing the Phillips style screw. the
big deal back then was the better screw to replace the applications that
used Phillips screws.

Many of us leanred about torx when we went to replace a headlight. WTF
is this thing?

On 8/14/2015 3:35 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Early 70's is when GM really started "platform" engineering,
building many models which only differed in small ways on
the same basic car. It reached it's peak in the following
generation, when the same platform was used for everything
from the Chevy Cavalier to the Cadillac Cimarron.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The age of true junk.

Took a bankruptcy to clean things up at GM.

FoMoCo brought in somebody from the outside.

There was no hope for Chrysler.


Lew


I assure you things at GM are not cleaned up.

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:55:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:03 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:05 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/12/2015 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Not so long ago, it took work to
find a Torx or Robertson bit.

Where were you looking? Now I will admit that I have a pretty long
automotive back ground but I bought my first Torx screw driver in 1975.
They were pretty plentiful at all the auto supply stores.

Usual home handyman sort of places - Home Depot, Ace, Sears.
They were considered "specialty tools", like circlip pliers.
No surprise you could find them in an auto parts store, but
that's not the first place someone other than an auto
mechanic would have looked.

I'd guess they started showing up widely about 7-8 years
ago. (which would be about the same time it became normal
to find a driver bit in a box of screws).

John

I'm sure it is all relative. I saw wide spread Torx in the 80's. You
just had to realize what you were looking at in the assortment/array of
screw drivers, sockets, and hex style wrenches.

I remember them from the '70s. It had to be before '75 because we had
a '74 Rustang. The door striker was essentially a Torx-head bolt.


74? Wasn't that the Pintang? ;~)

That's the one. Little POS. ;-)

Funny how Ford and GM started upper end vehicles based on their entry
level vehicles. Pinto/Mustang II...... Vega/Monza/Starfire/Skylark, IIRC.

Not sure I understand you point, "started upper end vehicles"?

More expensive vehicles based on the entry level. I had both a Chevy
Vega and an Olds Starfire. The Starfire looked different from the Vega
and had one hell of a more reliable V6 engine but looked different in
many respects, but handles, knobs, steering wheel positions, pillars,
pedals were all exactly in the same place.

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was rightfully
known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost premium for the
lace.

IIRC double the price.







That is entirely possible/likely. IIRC GM adopted the Torx in 1975.
Seat belt bolts were also some heavy duty applications of the Torx
screw. And for what that is worth, they may have been around earlier
than 1975 for GM however not for replacing the Phillips style screw.
the big deal back then was the better screw to replace the applications
that used Phillips screws.

I thought the original reason for the Torx head was robotic insertion.
It was easier for the tool to hold the fastener.

That could be true, either way the Torx was/are better and easier to use
than the Phillips head screws regardless of the user, robot or man.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was
rightfully known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost
premium for the lace.

IIRC double the price.

Funny tho that the Mustang II was an exceedingly popular car
in it's day - you used to see them all over the place. It
just goes to show how crappy the alternatives were at that
time.

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

John

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was
rightfully known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost
premium for the lace.

IIRC double the price.

Funny tho that the Mustang II was an exceedingly popular car
in it's day - you used to see them all over the place. It
just goes to show how crappy the alternatives were at that
time.

Well so were the Pinto's and Vegas. It was what we had to choose from
at the time if you wanted a small vehicle. Toyota was just getting into
the US market a few years prior with the Corollas and they did not have
a proven track record yet. Funny how that all turned out.




And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

John

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one of
the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back to
one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the Mustang
get designed from the ground up.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

John

In article ,
says...

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

For certain values. The D2C was derived from the DEW that was used in
the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S type. How much of that
design was Jaguar and how much was Ford I have no idea, but I can't see
Ford letting a subsidiary field a new design that will be sold under the
Ford brand without the home team approving it first. For 2015 though
the Mustang has had a ground-up redesign and is currently on a unique
platform.

On 8/15/2015 2:19 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Absolutely, it's like what were they thinking when the Mustang II came out.



I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

John

On 8/15/15 4:58 PM, Leon wrote:

Absolutely, it's like what were they thinking when the Mustang II
came out.


Ahhh, memories. :-) My second car. High school. Green and red
quarter panels... the Christmas car. I learned half of what I know
about auto mechanics on that summbench. Necessity is the mother of
knowledge. I drove for 1/2 of junior year using only the parking
brake. :-D


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:47:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 3:35 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Early 70's is when GM really started "platform" engineering,
building many models which only differed in small ways on
the same basic car. It reached it's peak in the following
generation, when the same platform was used for everything
from the Chevy Cavalier to the Cadillac Cimarron.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The age of true junk.

Took a bankruptcy to clean things up at GM.

FoMoCo brought in somebody from the outside.

There was no hope for Chrysler.


Lew


I assure you things at GM are not cleaned up.

He's right about Chrysler, though. Well, except for misspelling "is".

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:47:41 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:55:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:03 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:05 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/12/2015 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Not so long ago, it took work to
find a Torx or Robertson bit.

Where were you looking? Now I will admit that I have a pretty long
automotive back ground but I bought my first Torx screw driver in 1975.
They were pretty plentiful at all the auto supply stores.

Usual home handyman sort of places - Home Depot, Ace, Sears.
They were considered "specialty tools", like circlip pliers.
No surprise you could find them in an auto parts store, but
that's not the first place someone other than an auto
mechanic would have looked.

I'd guess they started showing up widely about 7-8 years
ago. (which would be about the same time it became normal
to find a driver bit in a box of screws).

John

I'm sure it is all relative. I saw wide spread Torx in the 80's. You
just had to realize what you were looking at in the assortment/array of
screw drivers, sockets, and hex style wrenches.

I remember them from the '70s. It had to be before '75 because we had
a '74 Rustang. The door striker was essentially a Torx-head bolt.


74? Wasn't that the Pintang? ;~)

That's the one. Little POS. ;-)

Funny how Ford and GM started upper end vehicles based on their entry
level vehicles. Pinto/Mustang II...... Vega/Monza/Starfire/Skylark, IIRC.

Not sure I understand you point, "started upper end vehicles"?

More expensive vehicles based on the entry level. I had both a Chevy
Vega and an Olds Starfire. The Starfire looked different from the Vega
and had one hell of a more reliable V6 engine but looked different in
many respects, but handles, knobs, steering wheel positions, pillars,
pedals were all exactly in the same place.

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was rightfully
known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost premium for the
lace.

IIRC double the price.

Not a chance. Pintos didn't go for under $1500. There may have been
a couple of hundred bucks difference, but that was it.


That is entirely possible/likely. IIRC GM adopted the Torx in 1975.
Seat belt bolts were also some heavy duty applications of the Torx
screw. And for what that is worth, they may have been around earlier
than 1975 for GM however not for replacing the Phillips style screw.
the big deal back then was the better screw to replace the applications
that used Phillips screws.

I thought the original reason for the Torx head was robotic insertion.
It was easier for the tool to hold the fastener.

That could be true, either way the Torx was/are better and easier to use
than the Phillips head screws regardless of the user, robot or man.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were
far worse than even the Detroit crap.

I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

Nope. Not even close. The T-Bird was supposed to be based on the Jag
but that was hype. Well, the whole T-Bird redux was all hype.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:57:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

For certain values. The D2C was derived from the DEW that was used in
the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S type. How much of that
design was Jaguar and how much was Ford I have no idea, but I can't see
Ford letting a subsidiary field a new design that will be sold under the
Ford brand without the home team approving it first. For 2015 though
the Mustang has had a ground-up redesign and is currently on a unique
platform.

....and I don't believe Jag has a solid rear axle, like the pre-'15
Mustangs.

On 8/15/2015 10:16 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:47:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 3:35 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Early 70's is when GM really started "platform" engineering,
building many models which only differed in small ways on
the same basic car. It reached it's peak in the following
generation, when the same platform was used for everything
from the Chevy Cavalier to the Cadillac Cimarron.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The age of true junk.

Took a bankruptcy to clean things up at GM.

FoMoCo brought in somebody from the outside.

There was no hope for Chrysler.


Lew


I assure you things at GM are not cleaned up.

He's right about Chrysler, though. Well, except for misspelling "is".


Well some one was bound to offer a larger Fiat with an American name on
it. Just so happens it actually was Fiat.

You would think they would have learned after their first go round when
I'uh'cocoa was brought in to straighten things out.

On 8/15/2015 10:18 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:47:41 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:55:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:03 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:05 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/12/2015 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Not so long ago, it took work to
find a Torx or Robertson bit.

Where were you looking? Now I will admit that I have a pretty long
automotive back ground but I bought my first Torx screw driver in 1975.
They were pretty plentiful at all the auto supply stores.

Usual home handyman sort of places - Home Depot, Ace, Sears.
They were considered "specialty tools", like circlip pliers.
No surprise you could find them in an auto parts store, but
that's not the first place someone other than an auto
mechanic would have looked.

I'd guess they started showing up widely about 7-8 years
ago. (which would be about the same time it became normal
to find a driver bit in a box of screws).

John

I'm sure it is all relative. I saw wide spread Torx in the 80's. You
just had to realize what you were looking at in the assortment/array of
screw drivers, sockets, and hex style wrenches.

I remember them from the '70s. It had to be before '75 because we had
a '74 Rustang. The door striker was essentially a Torx-head bolt.


74? Wasn't that the Pintang? ;~)

That's the one. Little POS. ;-)

Funny how Ford and GM started upper end vehicles based on their entry
level vehicles. Pinto/Mustang II...... Vega/Monza/Starfire/Skylark, IIRC.

Not sure I understand you point, "started upper end vehicles"?

More expensive vehicles based on the entry level. I had both a Chevy
Vega and an Olds Starfire. The Starfire looked different from the Vega
and had one hell of a more reliable V6 engine but looked different in
many respects, but handles, knobs, steering wheel positions, pillars,
pedals were all exactly in the same place.

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was rightfully
known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost premium for the
lace.

IIRC double the price.

Not a chance. Pintos didn't go for under $1500. There may have been
a couple of hundred bucks difference, but that was it.

Yeah they started at about $1900. I thought the Mustang II was north of
$4K. I was shopping and bought the Olds Starfire in 1975 and it was
based on the Vega and just shy of $5K. It was a copy of the Chevy Monza
and the Buick Skyhawk.








That is entirely possible/likely. IIRC GM adopted the Torx in 1975.
Seat belt bolts were also some heavy duty applications of the Torx
screw. And for what that is worth, they may have been around earlier
than 1975 for GM however not for replacing the Phillips style screw.
the big deal back then was the better screw to replace the applications
that used Phillips screws.

I thought the original reason for the Torx head was robotic insertion.
It was easier for the tool to hold the fastener.

That could be true, either way the Torx was/are better and easier to use
than the Phillips head screws regardless of the user, robot or man.

On 8/15/2015 10:21 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were
far worse than even the Detroit crap.

I don't think he mentioned anything about Japanese cars.

I in another post mentioned the Corollas.... And while they may not have
been ideal they started about 20% less expensive than the Vega and
Pinto. And they did improve, which cannot be said about either of the
other two. Corollas are still around 40+ years later.



I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

Nope. Not even close. The T-Bird was supposed to be based on the Jag
but that was hype. Well, the whole T-Bird redux was all hype.

The last T-Birds were based on a "dinner roll" with wheels. Or was it
the PT Cruiser?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:57:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

For certain values. The D2C was derived from the DEW that was used in
the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S type. How much of that
design was Jaguar and how much was Ford I have no idea, but I can't see
Ford letting a subsidiary field a new design that will be sold under the
Ford brand without the home team approving it first. For 2015 though
the Mustang has had a ground-up redesign and is currently on a unique
platform.

...and I don't believe Jag has a solid rear axle, like the pre-'15
Mustangs.

I believe the solid axle is one of the changes that was made going from
the DEW to the D2C.

krw wrote in news:va00tahjl10uj8lbm7psbjb70lqfvrqokm@
4ax.com:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were
far worse than even the Detroit crap.

How now? Are you saying the "Fox" platform cars had a rust
problem? Or that 1980's vintage Hondas and Toyotas had a
rust problem?

While I'll grant you that the cars of the 80's, especially
the early 80's, weren't examples of classic automobile
engineering, I think they did resolve a lot of the problems
that cars from the 70's exhibited.

John

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:04:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:57:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

For certain values. The D2C was derived from the DEW that was used in
the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S type. How much of that
design was Jaguar and how much was Ford I have no idea, but I can't see
Ford letting a subsidiary field a new design that will be sold under the
Ford brand without the home team approving it first. For 2015 though
the Mustang has had a ground-up redesign and is currently on a unique
platform.

...and I don't believe Jag has a solid rear axle, like the pre-'15
Mustangs.

I believe the solid axle is one of the changes that was made going from
the DEW to the D2C.

The Mustang has always (up until MY '15) has always had a solid rear
axle. It's quite a big difference.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:40:29 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/15/2015 10:21 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were
far worse than even the Detroit crap.

I don't think he mentioned anything about Japanese cars.

My mistake. I thought the thread had morphed to include the Japanese
cars.

I in another post mentioned the Corollas.... And while they may not have
been ideal they started about 20% less expensive than the Vega and
Pinto. And they did improve, which cannot be said about either of the
other two. Corollas are still around 40+ years later.

Yes, they certainly did improve. In the early '70s, they were no
better, though. They were *very* prone to rust. Worse than any
Detroit junk, even.


I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar
platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique
to the Mustang now.

Nope. Not even close. The T-Bird was supposed to be based on the Jag
but that was hype. Well, the whole T-Bird redux was all hype.

The last T-Birds were based on a "dinner roll" with wheels. Or was it
the PT Cruiser?

I thought the PT Cruiser was based, not on the bread, but on the bread
box.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:27:00 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

krw wrote in news:va00tahjl10uj8lbm7psbjb70lqfvrqokm@
4ax.com:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were
far worse than even the Detroit crap.

How now? Are you saying the "Fox" platform cars had a rust
problem? Or that 1980's vintage Hondas and Toyotas had a
rust problem?

We were discussing '70s cars (Rustang II, and such).

While I'll grant you that the cars of the 80's, especially
the early 80's, weren't examples of classic automobile
engineering, I think they did resolve a lot of the problems
that cars from the 70's exhibited.

The Japanese improved greatly in the '80s, sure. They improved before
Detroit even thought about improving, for sure.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:31:58 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/15/2015 10:18 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:47:41 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:55:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:03 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:05 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/12/2015 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Not so long ago, it took work to
find a Torx or Robertson bit.

Where were you looking? Now I will admit that I have a pretty long
automotive back ground but I bought my first Torx screw driver in 1975.
They were pretty plentiful at all the auto supply stores.

Usual home handyman sort of places - Home Depot, Ace, Sears.
They were considered "specialty tools", like circlip pliers.
No surprise you could find them in an auto parts store, but
that's not the first place someone other than an auto
mechanic would have looked.

I'd guess they started showing up widely about 7-8 years
ago. (which would be about the same time it became normal
to find a driver bit in a box of screws).

John

I'm sure it is all relative. I saw wide spread Torx in the 80's. You
just had to realize what you were looking at in the assortment/array of
screw drivers, sockets, and hex style wrenches.

I remember them from the '70s. It had to be before '75 because we had
a '74 Rustang. The door striker was essentially a Torx-head bolt.


74? Wasn't that the Pintang? ;~)

That's the one. Little POS. ;-)

Funny how Ford and GM started upper end vehicles based on their entry
level vehicles. Pinto/Mustang II...... Vega/Monza/Starfire/Skylark, IIRC.

Not sure I understand you point, "started upper end vehicles"?

More expensive vehicles based on the entry level. I had both a Chevy
Vega and an Olds Starfire. The Starfire looked different from the Vega
and had one hell of a more reliable V6 engine but looked different in
many respects, but handles, knobs, steering wheel positions, pillars,
pedals were all exactly in the same place.

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was rightfully
known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost premium for the
lace.

IIRC double the price.

Not a chance. Pintos didn't go for under $1500. There may have been
a couple of hundred bucks difference, but that was it.

Yeah they started at about $1900. I thought the Mustang II was north of
$4K. I was shopping and bought the Olds Starfire in 1975 and it was
based on the Vega and just shy of $5K. It was a copy of the Chevy Monza
and the Buick Skyhawk.

When we bought our '74 Mustang II, it was a bit south of $3000. The
alternative Pinto was only a couple of hundred less.

krw wrote in
:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:27:00 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

krw wrote in
news:va00tahjl10uj8lbm7psbjb70lqfvrqokm@ 4ax.com:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They
were far worse than even the Detroit crap.

How now? Are you saying the "Fox" platform cars had a rust
problem? Or that 1980's vintage Hondas and Toyotas had a
rust problem?

We were discussing '70s cars (Rustang II, and such).

This branch of the thread had moved on to me saying the later
Fox bodied cars were much better. Try to keep up :-)

Way way up thread I said the Mustang II was popular, because
the competition was just as bad, so I agree with your
premise that Japanese cars of the 70's had problems.

John

On 8/16/2015 11:38 AM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:31:58 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/15/2015 10:18 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:47:41 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:55:17 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/14/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:03 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:13:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/13/2015 8:05 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/12/2015 4:33 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Not so long ago, it took work to
find a Torx or Robertson bit.

Where were you looking? Now I will admit that I have a pretty long
automotive back ground but I bought my first Torx screw driver in 1975.
They were pretty plentiful at all the auto supply stores.

Usual home handyman sort of places - Home Depot, Ace, Sears.
They were considered "specialty tools", like circlip pliers.
No surprise you could find them in an auto parts store, but
that's not the first place someone other than an auto
mechanic would have looked.

I'd guess they started showing up widely about 7-8 years
ago. (which would be about the same time it became normal
to find a driver bit in a box of screws).

John

I'm sure it is all relative. I saw wide spread Torx in the 80's. You
just had to realize what you were looking at in the assortment/array of
screw drivers, sockets, and hex style wrenches.

I remember them from the '70s. It had to be before '75 because we had
a '74 Rustang. The door striker was essentially a Torx-head bolt.


74? Wasn't that the Pintang? ;~)

That's the one. Little POS. ;-)

Funny how Ford and GM started upper end vehicles based on their entry
level vehicles. Pinto/Mustang II...... Vega/Monza/Starfire/Skylark, IIRC.

Not sure I understand you point, "started upper end vehicles"?

More expensive vehicles based on the entry level. I had both a Chevy
Vega and an Olds Starfire. The Starfire looked different from the Vega
and had one hell of a more reliable V6 engine but looked different in
many respects, but handles, knobs, steering wheel positions, pillars,
pedals were all exactly in the same place.

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was rightfully
known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost premium for the
lace.

IIRC double the price.

Not a chance. Pintos didn't go for under $1500. There may have been
a couple of hundred bucks difference, but that was it.

Yeah they started at about $1900. I thought the Mustang II was north of
$4K. I was shopping and bought the Olds Starfire in 1975 and it was
based on the Vega and just shy of $5K. It was a copy of the Chevy Monza
and the Buick Skyhawk.

When we bought our '74 Mustang II, it was a bit south of $3000. The
alternative Pinto was only a couple of hundred less.



Makes one wonder for a couple hundred less how any one would buy a Pinto
over a Mustang.
But you are very close on pricing.. I
I found this.

Retail Prices:
2dr Hardtop, 60F: $3,134.00
3dr 2+2, 69F: $3,328.00
2dr, Ghia, 60H: $3,480.00
3dr Mach 1, 69R: $3,674.00

I can see why they were not wonderful cars. That was almost too good to
be true pricing.

On 8/16/2015 11:33 AM, krw wrote:


The last T-Birds were based on a "dinner roll" with wheels. Or was it
the PT Cruiser?

I thought the PT Cruiser was based, not on the bread, but on the bread
box.



Probably right. ;~)

On 8/16/2015 11:33 AM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:40:29 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/15/2015 10:21 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when
the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs
around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers,
mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then,
after California talked Ford into a police package based
on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from
the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one
of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back
to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the
Mustang get designed from the ground up.

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that
generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust,
and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the
Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.

Bull****. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were
far worse than even the Detroit crap.

I don't think he mentioned anything about Japanese cars.

My mistake. I thought the thread had morphed to include the Japanese
cars.

I in another post mentioned the Corollas.... And while they may not have
been ideal they started about 20% less expensive than the Vega and
Pinto. And they did improve, which cannot be said about either of the
other two. Corollas are still around 40+ years later.

Yes, they certainly did improve. In the early '70s, they were no
better, though. They were *very* prone to rust. Worse than any
Detroit junk, even.

One thing I never quite understood was that most new brands introduced
here never bring their "A" game. Lexus and Acura probably being the
only exceptions and only because Toyota and Honda were already here and
had a good reputation by the mid 80's.

Yugo, Diahatsu, Fiat, again, Mini Cooper did not and or do not have a
good reputation for being reliable at all.