Another recall - fire risk

We had 1976, 1977 and 1978 Mercury Monarchs (Granadas) also. And they were
EXACTLY as you stated. And they were some of the BETTER model vehicles
available at the time.


"Big Shoe" > wrote in message
...
>I was the proud owner of a new 1975 Ford Granada - remember that piece
> of junk? The 70's decade is when all the tight emission controls came
> into being. It took quite a number of years for the car makers to get
> that sorted out and to build cars that ran well. Remember when they
> continued to run after the key was turned off? That was also the
> 70's.
>
> I also remember the misguided attempt to force people to use seat
> belts - the seat belt interlock. That was in '74 and the car would
> not start if the belt was not fastened. I had one that sometimes
> would not start if the belt was fastened or not. I finally traded it
> on the '75 Granada.
>
> Only way we finally got cars that would run well again was fuel
> injection and computer controls.
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:03:11 -0500, "Hairy" > wrote:
>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Not true. The 1970s cars in particular were junk within 3 years.
>>> >>
>>"D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>>> Bull****! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and
>>on
>>> and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in
>>the
>>> 1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per
>>> gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.
>>>
>>
>>Poor gas mileage doesn't equal "junk in 3 years". Sure, Detroit put out
>>some
>>poor examples in the '70's, they still do. That will never change. You get
>>what you pay for.
>>H
>>
>

"D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Vega, Pinto and Volare' were junk in 3 years. The bigger cars...mostly
> tweaks of cars designed in the late 1960's MIGHT have lasted longer, but
the
> fact that they were not junk in 3 years doesn't mean they were GOOD cars
> either. I think a good summary would be this: The small Detroit attempts
in
> the early 1970s were ALL junk. The rest of the lines were fairly good
until
> they started trying to make them fuel efficient, run on unleaded gas and
be
> cleaner. As the '70's went on, the cars got junkier and junkier. Toyota
and
> Honda weren't much better, rusting out in 2-3 years also. But, to their
> credit, they evolved to build the quality standards of the world. Detroit
> also got better, but not "better enough".
>

In 1972 I bought a new Dodge Charger. With the exception of a carb linkage
problem, that was fixed, it was an excellent car. No other problems in
55,000 miles. In '74 I bought a new Caprice Classic convertible. No problems
with it except for the ignition module that went out during the first week
that I had it. Also, at the same time, my wife bought a new Mustang II.
Wasn't much of a car but no real problems. In '77 I bought a new Camaro. No
problems with it except for the seat vinyl came apart at the seams, which
the dealer replaced. I've also had several used cars including a '75 Monte
Carlo that gave no trouble at all, and a '78 Olds 98 That was nearly
flawless.
I draw my conclusions from real experience. Where do you get yours?
H

"Remember when they continued to run after the key was turned off?
That was also the
70's. "

My '92 Explorer doesn't run with the key off, but I can pull the key
right out while it's running and drive it with no problems. As a plus,
I never accidentally lock my keys in the truck this way. You do need
the keys to start it though so there is a plus for Ford.

I draw mine from our 1978 Plymouth Volare' that had front fenders that were
rusted out within 18 months. And from our 1977 Mercury Monarch (Granada
clone) that had a wiring harness fire within the first year. And from my
father's 1977 Sedan DeVille which stalled constantly until he gave up and
traded it in. And from my mother's 1970 Chevy Nova which had some sort of
annoying carburator problem that never could be fixed. And from my aunt's
1970 Ford Maverick that was TOTAL junk before the 48 month loan was paid
off. And from my parents 1979 Chrysler LeBaron (built on the Volare/Aspen
chassis) that we called "LeBomb" and LePieceof**** because it had SO many
things wrong with it. And from my mom's 1974 Chevy Malibu that had that
freakin' seat belt lock (which admittedly, doesn't in itself make it a bad
car) and got 9 MPG around town (perhaps less with the A/C on). And yes, 9MPG
even on a car that was otherwise perfect would qualify a 1974 vehicle as
"crap" in my book.

I am in Pittsburgh which, I admit, is tough on cars. Lots of STEEP hills all
day long and nasty winters. Perhaps you are in an easier climate. That being
said, cars before the 1970s and after have held up much better. Thus proving
my assertion that the 1970s was a BAD time for cars.



"Hairy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vega, Pinto and Volare' were junk in 3 years. The bigger cars...mostly
>> tweaks of cars designed in the late 1960's MIGHT have lasted longer, but
> the
>> fact that they were not junk in 3 years doesn't mean they were GOOD cars
>> either. I think a good summary would be this: The small Detroit attempts
> in
>> the early 1970s were ALL junk. The rest of the lines were fairly good
> until
>> they started trying to make them fuel efficient, run on unleaded gas and
> be
>> cleaner. As the '70's went on, the cars got junkier and junkier. Toyota
> and
>> Honda weren't much better, rusting out in 2-3 years also. But, to their
>> credit, they evolved to build the quality standards of the world. Detroit
>> also got better, but not "better enough".
>>
>
> In 1972 I bought a new Dodge Charger. With the exception of a carb linkage
> problem, that was fixed, it was an excellent car. No other problems in
> 55,000 miles. In '74 I bought a new Caprice Classic convertible. No
> problems
> with it except for the ignition module that went out during the first week
> that I had it. Also, at the same time, my wife bought a new Mustang II.
> Wasn't much of a car but no real problems. In '77 I bought a new Camaro.
> No
> problems with it except for the seat vinyl came apart at the seams, which
> the dealer replaced. I've also had several used cars including a '75 Monte
> Carlo that gave no trouble at all, and a '78 Olds 98 That was nearly
> flawless.
> I draw my conclusions from real experience. Where do you get yours?
> H
>
>

Yeah but that vehicle is now 14 model years old. I wonder how many years it
ran well before that happened? The '70's crap was doing **** like that right
from the factory!

"sw" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Remember when they continued to run after the key was turned off?
> That was also the
> 70's. "
>
> My '92 Explorer doesn't run with the key off, but I can pull the key
> right out while it's running and drive it with no problems. As a plus,
> I never accidentally lock my keys in the truck this way. You do need
> the keys to start it though so there is a plus for Ford.
>

all of the cars you mentioned were bad cars
"D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
...
I draw mine from our 1978 Plymouth Volare' that had front fenders that were
rusted out within 18 months. And from our 1977 Mercury Monarch (Granada
clone) that had a wiring harness fire within the first year. And from my
father's 1977 Sedan DeVille which stalled constantly until he gave up and
traded it in. And from my mother's 1970 Chevy Nova which had some sort of
annoying carburator problem that never could be fixed. And from my aunt's
1970 Ford Maverick that was TOTAL junk before the 48 month loan was paid
off. And from my parents 1979 Chrysler LeBaron (built on the Volare/Aspen
chassis) that we called "LeBomb" and LePieceof**** because it had SO many
things wrong with it. And from my mom's 1974 Chevy Malibu that had that
freakin' seat belt lock (which admittedly, doesn't in itself make it a bad
car) and got 9 MPG around town (perhaps less with the A/C on). And yes, 9MPG
even on a car that was otherwise perfect would qualify a 1974 vehicle as
"crap" in my book.

I am in Pittsburgh which, I admit, is tough on cars. Lots of STEEP hills all
day long and nasty winters. Perhaps you are in an easier climate. That being
said, cars before the 1970s and after have held up much better. Thus proving
my assertion that the 1970s was a BAD time for cars.



"Hairy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vega, Pinto and Volare' were junk in 3 years. The bigger cars...mostly
>> tweaks of cars designed in the late 1960's MIGHT have lasted longer, but
> the
>> fact that they were not junk in 3 years doesn't mean they were GOOD cars
>> either. I think a good summary would be this: The small Detroit attempts
> in
>> the early 1970s were ALL junk. The rest of the lines were fairly good
> until
>> they started trying to make them fuel efficient, run on unleaded gas and
> be
>> cleaner. As the '70's went on, the cars got junkier and junkier. Toyota
> and
>> Honda weren't much better, rusting out in 2-3 years also. But, to their
>> credit, they evolved to build the quality standards of the world. Detroit
>> also got better, but not "better enough".
>>
>
> In 1972 I bought a new Dodge Charger. With the exception of a carb linkage
> problem, that was fixed, it was an excellent car. No other problems in
> 55,000 miles. In '74 I bought a new Caprice Classic convertible. No
> problems
> with it except for the ignition module that went out during the first week
> that I had it. Also, at the same time, my wife bought a new Mustang II.
> Wasn't much of a car but no real problems. In '77 I bought a new Camaro.
> No
> problems with it except for the seat vinyl came apart at the seams, which
> the dealer replaced. I've also had several used cars including a '75 Monte
> Carlo that gave no trouble at all, and a '78 Olds 98 That was nearly
> flawless.
> I draw my conclusions from real experience. Where do you get yours?
> H
>
>

"D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> I draw mine from our 1978 Plymouth Volare' that had front fenders that
were
> rusted out within 18 months. And from our 1977 Mercury Monarch (Granada
> clone) that had a wiring harness fire within the first year. And from my
> father's 1977 Sedan DeVille which stalled constantly until he gave up and
> traded it in. And from my mother's 1970 Chevy Nova which had some sort of
> annoying carburator problem that never could be fixed. And from my aunt's
> 1970 Ford Maverick that was TOTAL junk before the 48 month loan was paid
> off. And from my parents 1979 Chrysler LeBaron (built on the Volare/Aspen
> chassis) that we called "LeBomb" and LePieceof**** because it had SO many
> things wrong with it. And from my mom's 1974 Chevy Malibu that had that
> freakin' seat belt lock (which admittedly, doesn't in itself make it a bad
> car) and got 9 MPG around town (perhaps less with the A/C on). And yes,
9MPG
> even on a car that was otherwise perfect would qualify a 1974 vehicle as
> "crap" in my book.
>
> I am in Pittsburgh which, I admit, is tough on cars. Lots of STEEP hills
all
> day long and nasty winters. Perhaps you are in an easier climate. That
being
> said, cars before the 1970s and after have held up much better. Thus
proving
> my assertion that the 1970s was a BAD time for cars.
>

Actually, your assertion was- "The 1970s cars in particular were junk within
3 years", which simply isn't true, in most cases. It looks to me like the
difference between your *bad* cars and my *good* cars is the dealership
service departments. Mine were fixed when something cropped up and yours
weren't. As far as the harness fire thing is concerned, that seems to be
more a Ford thing rather than a '70's thing. Hence this thread. Fuel mileage
wasn't good in the '70's. Wasn't good in the '60's or '80's, either, if you
had any horsepower at all. I thought the eighties were the worst. That's why
I only bought one new car during that decade, an '86 Monte that didn't even
come close to being as good a car as the used '75 Monte I'd had previously.
Here in SE Iowa, we have the salty winters but not so hilly. From my point
of view, it has been a *bad* time for cars since about the mid to late
'70's, with few exceptions.
H

In article .com>,
"sw" > wrote:

> "Remember when they continued to run after the key was turned off?
> That was also the
> 70's. "
>
> My '92 Explorer doesn't run with the key off, but I can pull the key
> right out while it's running and drive it with no problems. As a plus,
> I never accidentally lock my keys in the truck this way. You do need
> the keys to start it though so there is a plus for Ford.

*L* my 87 Ranger could start without the key in the ignition. My kids
figured that one out. But you couldn't depend on it, sometimes it would
and sometimes it wouldn't........*sigh* I miss Rodney.

As I asked before, the CNN website lists the cars with the switch
involved as Explorers without IVD 1995-2003. What is the IVD stand for?

Interactive Vehicle Dynamics.
http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/SRS028.htm
Its a stability control system. The service manual information shows
this system being available sometime after Feb. 18, 2002. For whatever
reason, Explorers having IVD no longer have a Brake Pressure Switch and
have a Redundant Pedal Switch. This Redundant Pedal Switch is shown as
being powered all the time.