When Cars Were Crap

I like to see a well balanced article. Unfortunately, this isn't it! It focuses solely on the Trabant, all the East Germans had at the time, and Muscle cars from the US. How about some examples from western Europe, and Japan? Or would they not have shown the desired pollution levels?

I don't think everyone in the US had a King Cobra Mustang, did they? If they did, I should be able to buy one quite cheaply!

I find it interesting that the sales figures for 'gas guzzlers' in the US have taken a dive lately due to rising fuel costs. Welcome to my world!

They don't make them like they used to and I am glad of it. I can remember when tires got 1000 miles if they were good and it was a given that an in line 8 would overheat on any good grade.

All of the American "big three", General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, made substandard vehicles almost exclusively from the early-to-mid '70's through the '80's. A few models had merit, but look at how few cars from that time period are still on the road today compared to older or newer years. And look at which cars from that era became so popular they are now the leading sellers...

Lest we forget the Chevy Citation with that lively 4 banger breathing through that one-barrel carb choked to death with tubes and hoses running all around trying to improve emissions. Now, there's a car to remember.

Nothing's a complete failure. It can always serve as a bad example.

Interesting thing (much to my surprise) there is a cult following of Citation owners. I had forgotten that Chevy even put a 2.8L MPI V6 into some models making for a sporty X-11. So perhaps I shouldn't have been so quick to malign the car (although the one I drove for driver's ed sure deserved it. Gutless wonder was a good description, and probably just right for testosterone addled teen-aged drivers ).

I guess with the right trimmings, it might make a decent autocross car and it looks like there was/is an SCCA racing class too. Things we learn with a little research.

One must remember that back in the 50's and 60's, air pollution wasn't an issue. You might complain about the quality of the air, but you lived with it. Today, everyone expects something to be done about it. I guess it's awareness. The same about the price of gas. Back then gas cost 25¢ a gallon and nobody complained. Cars were much less reliable than they are today. Automobile technology has come a long way since the 40's. You were lucky if your engine lasted 50K miles and they burned a qt of oil every 1000 miles or less. You could buy a car without a rear seat, a heater, radio or outside mirrors. Today they are all standard including air conditioning. We now pay more, but we also get a lot more bank for the buck.

My first car in 1955, was a 1952 MG. Electrical systems were terrible. I broke 3 rear axles. The windshield would leak when it rained. The shocks leaked. You couldn't keep the two SU carburetters synchronized. It had no power. It would overheat. It didn't have a heater, but it was a fun car to drive. The best place for old cars is in a museum.

In the US planned obsolescence for Chevrolet cars started in 1958. Trucks a year later. In 1958 a Chevy Biscayne (not sure on the spelling) came with no grease fittings anywhere on the vehicle. This was also the first year of no wheel well mud/splash protection. You see lots of 57 Chevy's but how often do you see 58, 59 60 cars? My youngest brother learned this the hard way when he bought a 58 that had been up on blocks for 10+ years. He thought he got a good deal when he bought it. We called it the lead sled. Two speed automatic and I could lay down on the floor in the back seat comfortably. We had to drill out every part of the suspension that needed greasing and put in grease fittings. Replacement parts just did not exist by then, so we ended up making (or junk yard adjusting) lots of parts and still driving it. It ate tires.

I also disagree with the better fuel mileage.

If my 429 Cobra Jet engine in a 71Ford F250 6,000 lb plus pickup with 410 rear-end that got 15 mpg city, highway, loaded or not and I hauled oil barrels (mostly full) on a 400 mile loop several times a week. It may have been a little better but I used the secondaries regularly. It passed emissions regularly even though it wasn't necessary.

My Fathers 2003 Dodge diesel gets 17 and is drove for mileage only, loaded it goes down to as far as 13 (fifth wheel trailer).

The full size gas pickups rarely get the 15 now and not loaded.

We made a full sized diesel pickup in the early 80's that got 25mpg Dad says it got 27 unloaded but I don't remember getting that much.

Even if the fuel looses 10% mileage to oxygenaters, the 1.5mpg doesn't add up. The mileage went down not up.

Brad

My '73 Dodge D200 (3/4 ton) pick-up with a 400 ci engine (180 hp but a lot of torque) could get 15 mpg unloaded. With a permanently mounted cab-over camper and watching a vacuum gauge closely, I could get close to 9 mpg. But then I could get that sucker up to 90 mph.

With the 410 rear end 110mph was topped out. But you had to open the secondaries an I would have to guess about 4mpg. Estimated out put was 425 hp and loads of torque. If I got to good of a launch I could bind the rear universal, overload springs and my rubber bump-stop that worked 95%of the time.

Now rear tires on the other hand lasted a month, two if I bought them new. $30 per set mounted used or $80 each before tax, mounting, and balancing.

For some reason that system worked very well and why the big three can't seem to do it ...

Brad