If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > Ed Price wrote: > >> >> "David" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> >>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> >>>> James wrote: >>>> >>>> If >>>> you can deal with the lack of power the slant six will run forever, and >>>> truth be told it's not *that* slow, >>> >>> >>> They had sufficient power, but they were pretty slow when you consider >>> the poor fuel-economy. >>> >>> I've had inline-6 versions of a couple of the cars on the list. The >>> only one >>> I remember the fuel economy for was the Rambler American, 3-speed, no >>> OD. >>> I could almost get 21MPG on the highway if I kept the speed to about 55 >>> MPH. >>> At 65, gas mileage dropped into the teens. >>> >>> My 6cyl auto car today accellerates & stops much faster, handles better, >>> has much >>> better traction in poor conditions, and approaches 30MPG at around >>> 70MPH. >>> >>> But for frugal-living (since that seems to be a goal of the OP), if one >>> did ones own repairs, >>> a decent Dart or Rambler American might not be a bad choice. >>> >>> >> >> Having owned both a 49 and 55 Studebaker, I can assure you that they >> should only be recommended for calibrating crash-test dummies. >> > > I'm not sure I understand that comment - by '55 Stude had better brakes > than anyone else on the market, and the V-8 engine was near bulletproof. > (the Champion six was a good engine but underpowered, and tended to only > last 100K miles or so before burning oil) Rust was a killer tho. > > By comparison, the brakes on a six-cylinder Dart are pathetic... 9" front > drums? sheesh! > > nate Having never owned a Dart, I can't comment on it. OTOH, both of my Studebakers were straight six engines; about 230 cu inch IIRC. Underpowered? Hmmm, yes. I was once beat going up a hill by a bus. Just love those Study heaters, located under the front seat. They put out just enough heat to keep you in a state of constantly alert pain. By the time the air blew up to the defrost vents, you might as well just breathe of the windows. Are you nostalgic for vacuum operated wipers that almost stop when you accelerate? How about the idea of placing the distributor somewhat low on the left side of the engine, so as to maximize the probability of a splash of water shutting you down? The 49 had king-pin front-end geometry, but I can't remember if that was also on the 55. I don't recall the 55's brakes being any better or worse than those on, say, a 60 or 63 Chevy (although the Chevy was a bit heavier). And rust; well, rust was a factory option. If I had owned my Ruger at that time, I would now be able to tell you if the engine truly was bulletproof. Ed |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Price wrote:
> > "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message > ... > >> Ed Price wrote: >> >>> >>> "David" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> >>>> >>>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> James wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If >>>>> you can deal with the lack of power the slant six will run forever, >>>>> and >>>>> truth be told it's not *that* slow, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> They had sufficient power, but they were pretty slow when you consider >>>> the poor fuel-economy. >>>> >>>> I've had inline-6 versions of a couple of the cars on the list. The >>>> only one >>>> I remember the fuel economy for was the Rambler American, 3-speed, >>>> no OD. >>>> I could almost get 21MPG on the highway if I kept the speed to about >>>> 55 MPH. >>>> At 65, gas mileage dropped into the teens. >>>> >>>> My 6cyl auto car today accellerates & stops much faster, handles >>>> better, has much >>>> better traction in poor conditions, and approaches 30MPG at around >>>> 70MPH. >>>> >>>> But for frugal-living (since that seems to be a goal of the OP), if >>>> one did ones own repairs, >>>> a decent Dart or Rambler American might not be a bad choice. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Having owned both a 49 and 55 Studebaker, I can assure you that they >>> should only be recommended for calibrating crash-test dummies. >>> >> >> I'm not sure I understand that comment - by '55 Stude had better >> brakes than anyone else on the market, and the V-8 engine was near >> bulletproof. (the Champion six was a good engine but underpowered, and >> tended to only last 100K miles or so before burning oil) Rust was a >> killer tho. >> >> By comparison, the brakes on a six-cylinder Dart are pathetic... 9" >> front drums? sheesh! >> >> nate > > > > Having never owned a Dart, I can't comment on it. OTOH, both of my > Studebakers were straight six engines; about 230 cu inch IIRC. 170 cubing inches of ragin' performance. Or 185 in certain years, I forget which. 230 was the GM/McKinnon motor used in '65-66; if you had had that you wouldn't be complaining, that's a decent engine. > Underpowered? Hmmm, yes. Perfectly adequate for the car for which it was designed. In 1939. > I was once beat going up a hill by a bus. Just > love those Study heaters, located under the front seat. They put out > just enough heat to keep you in a state of constantly alert pain. All mine have been V-8 models, I have never *needed* the heater, enough radiates off the back of the engine and the exhaust pipes... > By the > time the air blew up to the defrost vents, you might as well just > breathe of the windows. Are you nostalgic for vacuum operated wipers > that almost stop when you accelerate? never had those either... and I like the old electric wipers, they will snap your hand off rather than stop wiping the windshield... > How about the idea of placing the > distributor somewhat low on the left side of the engine, so as to > maximize the probability of a splash of water shutting you down? V-8 didn't have that problem either. > The 49 > had king-pin front-end geometry, but I can't remember if that was also > on the 55. Yes, it remained kingpins all the way to the end. that's not necessarily bad; there's no functional difference between the Stude suspension and double control arms with ball joints at the outer end. The kingpins were supposedly more abuse resistant than ball joints as well. > I don't recall the 55's brakes being any better or worse than > those on, say, a 60 or 63 Chevy (although the Chevy was a bit heavier). They were 11" finned drums on all of mine, although I think the sixes had 10" drums. The V-8 brakes are really the next best thing to discs (and they did introduce discs in '63) > And rust; well, rust was a factory option. > yeah... I can't argue with that one. > If I had owned my Ruger at that time, I would now be able to tell you if > the engine truly was bulletproof. > > Ed LOL... Does it make you feel any better to tell you that if you'd popped for the V-8 you might have felt better about your car? No? Oh well... I feel your pain, it's not like I've ever made a bad automotive decision in my life... nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:43:06 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote: >Otherwise, they're grossly polluting deathboxes with no defogger or heater >to speak of and *certainly* no A/C. It only seems like they were good cars >because there were a lot of mind-altering drugs going around in the '60s. I've got to agree with Dan here, lots of anecdotal and personal verifications. I was told about a guy who founded a successful VW repair station in Ohio, I think. VW bugs would be hammering west along the interstate at full throttle and maximum speed (around 70 or so) against the prevailing wind (almost always the wind blows out of the west along the route south of the great lakes). Full throttle for hours. They'd pull off at this particular exit because that's about how far they could get on one tank of gas starting from somewhere in NY. The valves were red hot from the exertion and warped immediately when the driver pulled off and shut down. When the guy tried starting after fillup, no compression, or at least no compression in the hot cylinder, the one blocked by the oil cooler. A personal anecdote, I was driving south to Georgia to get back to school one rainy winter evening. I think I was in northern Georgia when I passed a long on-ramp to the interstate that joined in a long downhill run. I saw lights coming down the on-ramp as I approached, then noticed something strange about them, they were rotating like a beacon. I chanced a glance to see what the hell was going on and saw a bug sliding down the onramp on it's roof, spinning like a top. In order to get the car to handle at all, the front tires HAD to be adjusted to 18 psi, and the rear tires at 32 psi, or the car was all over the road. Corky Scott |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
> By comparison, the brakes on a six-cylinder Dart are pathetic... 9" > front drums? sheesh! ....unless your particular six-cylinder Dart had the 10" drums. Or the discs. And, while the 9" drums certainly weren't the world's best brakes by any stretch, they were larger in swept area than comparable products from Ford, GM and Rambler, and completely adequate for the cars they were designed for, the light-weight '60-'62 Valiant and Lancer. They continued being completely adequate for the '63-'66 Valiant, though the Dart's enlargement (and increased weight) for '63 made the 9" brakes merely "passably adequate". But yeah, the 10" drums and the discs were better. DS |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>Sell it to me! > > OK. He > > http://u225.torque.net/cars/89Ram/89Ram.html > > You know my e-mail. > that *is* a cute little truck. I see two problems: I'm a stickshift > snob, and it *does* appear to have canuckian plates on it. Yep, it does have Ontario plates on it. It's also got US emissions and US safety compliance, and the factory labelling to prove it. Therefore, no sweat crossing the border. You don't want a Torqueflite, eh? Mmkay! > Oh well, I'll just wait for my friend to get tired of his '63 Wagonaire > with 3/OD and limited slip rear... (yeah right) Yeah...you might want to take along a book or three for while you're waiting. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > Ed Price wrote: > >> >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> Ed Price wrote: >>>> Having owned both a 49 and 55 Studebaker, I can assure you that they >>>> should only be recommended for calibrating crash-test dummies. >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand that comment - by '55 Stude had better brakes >>> than anyone else on the market, and the V-8 engine was near bulletproof. >>> (the Champion six was a good engine but underpowered, and tended to only >>> last 100K miles or so before burning oil) Rust was a killer tho. >>> >>> By comparison, the brakes on a six-cylinder Dart are pathetic... 9" >>> front drums? sheesh! >>> >>> nate >> >> >> >> Having never owned a Dart, I can't comment on it. OTOH, both of my >> Studebakers were straight six engines; about 230 cu inch IIRC. > > 170 cubing inches of ragin' performance. Or 185 in certain years, I > forget which. 230 was the GM/McKinnon motor used in '65-66; if you had > had that you wouldn't be complaining, that's a decent engine. > >> Underpowered? Hmmm, yes. > > Perfectly adequate for the car for which it was designed. In 1939. The Studebaker buffs wax nostalgic because they visualize the Commander or President (?) with the V8. You are right about the six, my various Chevys were 230 cu inche sixes; 175 or so sounded right for the Studebaker. IIRC, I had Champions both times, and the 55 had a "hill-holder" (brake lock at full clutch depression) and overdrive (unless you needed to go UP-hill). > >> I was once beat going up a hill by a bus. > > All mine have been V-8 models, >> How about the idea of placing the distributor somewhat low on the left >> side of the engine, so as to maximize the probability of a splash of >> water shutting you down? > > V-8 didn't have that problem either. >> I don't recall the 55's brakes being any better or worse than those on, >> say, a 60 or 63 Chevy (although the Chevy was a bit heavier). > > They were 11" finned drums on all of mine, although I think the sixes had > 10" drums. The V-8 brakes are really the next best thing to discs (and > they did introduce discs in '63) > >> And rust; well, rust was a factory option. >> > > yeah... I can't argue with that one. > >> If I had owned my Ruger at that time, I would now be able to tell you if >> the engine truly was bulletproof. >> >> Ed > > LOL... Does it make you feel any better to tell you that if you'd popped > for the V-8 you might have felt better about your car? No? Oh well... I > feel your pain, it's not like I've ever made a bad automotive decision in > my life... > > nate If I would have had a V* in either of those cars, I would have probably killed myself several times over. The Studebaker 6 taught you humility. As for bad car decisions, I later bought a Chevy 350 police car at an auction, a 65 Chevy II 6 Powerglide station wagon, and a Fiat 850 spyder. Yeah, I got a lot of mental problems! Ed |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Price wrote: > The Studebaker buffs wax nostalgic because they visualize the Commander or > President (?) with the V8. You are right about the six, my various Chevys > were 230 cu inche sixes; 175 or so sounded right for the Studebaker. IIRC, I > had Champions both times, and the 55 had a "hill-holder" (brake lock at full > clutch depression) and overdrive (unless you needed to go UP-hill). > Oh yes. There are Stude fans that claim to like Champions; at the risk of alienating half the Studebaker club, I don't understand those people. That sweet little V-8 is the whole reason I like Studebakers (well, that and the styling of the 53-54 C-K series ("Loewy Coupe," actually a misnomer as the bulk of the styling work was done by Bob Bourke, but I digress) but I don't have the financial wherewithal to purchase one of those.) Nothing but nothing sounds like a Stude V-8 through straight duals, except for the very similar early Cadillac V-8, and it's a sweet sound. Add to that the fact that they are very responsive, torquey engines and ridiculously overbuilt (they were designed in an era when engine designers were anticipating ultra-high-octane pump gas to be available in just a few years, and were expecting to be raising compression ratios to the 12:1 or higher range - which was handy when Studebaker later started working with McCulloch - later Paxton - for their high-performance supercharged engines, but I digress again) and you have one nice driver. <snip> > If I would have had a V* in either of those cars, I would have probably > killed myself several times over. The Studebaker 6 taught you humility. yeah, I can see how that would happen nate |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote: > > > By comparison, the brakes on a six-cylinder Dart are pathetic... 9" > > front drums? sheesh! > > ...unless your particular six-cylinder Dart had the 10" drums. Or the > discs. > > And, while the 9" drums certainly weren't the world's best brakes by any > stretch, they were larger in swept area than comparable products from > Ford, GM and Rambler, and completely adequate for the cars they were > designed for, the light-weight '60-'62 Valiant and Lancer. They continued > being completely adequate for the '63-'66 Valiant, though the Dart's > enlargement (and increased weight) for '63 made the 9" brakes merely > "passably adequate". > > But yeah, the 10" drums and the discs were better. > > DS My only experience with those brakes was on my '67 Dart, and later my then-GF's '69 Valiant; both were in excellent shape mechanically (well, the brakes at least - the Dart was a bit of a POS, although the Valiant was a beautiful car, or at least as beautiful as a baby vomit green 4-door can be) but were sadly disappointing compared to the earlier Studebaker V-8 brakes. I have no experience with Ford, GM or Rambler vehicles of that era so that is really my only basis of comparison. nate |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott > wrote in message ... > Daniel J. > wrote >>Otherwise, they're grossly polluting deathboxes with no defogger or heater >>to speak of and *certainly* no A/C. It only seems like they were good cars >>because there were a lot of mind-altering drugs going around in the '60s. > I've got to agree with Dan here, lots > of anecdotal and personal verifications. Like hell you have. > I was told about a guy who founded a successful VW repair > station in Ohio, I think. VW bugs would be hammering west > along the interstate at full throttle and maximum speed (around > 70 or so) against the prevailing wind (almost always the wind > blows out of the west along the route south of the great lakes). Like hell it does. > Full throttle for hours. They'd pull off at this particular > exit because that's about how far they could get on > one tank of gas starting from somewhere in NY. The > valves were red hot from the exertion and warped > immediately when the driver pulled off and shut down. Complete pack of lies. > When the guy tried starting after fillup, no > compression, or at least no compression in > the hot cylinder, the one blocked by the oil cooler. Complete pack of lies. > A personal anecdote, I was driving south to Georgia to get back to > school one rainy winter evening. I think I was in northern Georgia > when I passed a long on-ramp to the interstate that joined in a long > downhill run. I saw lights coming down the on-ramp as I approached, > then noticed something strange about them, they were rotating like a > beacon. I chanced a glance to see what the hell was going on and > saw a bug sliding down the onramp on it's roof, spinning like a top. So what ? > In order to get the car to handle at all, the front > tires HAD to be adjusted to 18 psi, and the rear > tires at 32 psi, or the car was all over the road. Yet another complete pack of lies. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:
> Like hell you have. > Like hell it does. > Complete pack of lies. > Complete pack of lies. > So what ? > Yet another complete pack of lies. Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frugal auto transportation: theories? | Daniel J. Stern | Chrysler | 28 | January 9th 05 10:18 PM |
Auto Shipper Beware | Steve Sears | Antique cars | 0 | May 28th 04 05:58 PM |
Fleet Maintenance Pro v9.0.19 Enterprise 100 users, STRACfastMaintenance 2.5c, Auto Maintenance Pro v9.0 Professional Incl Keygen,various other AUTO and BOAT Maintenance progs ... | [email protected], [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | October 23rd 03 09:08 PM |