Frugal auto transportation: theories?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, D. Dub wrote:
>
>
>>>>a VW diesel from that era will go forever and ever and ever and
>>>>ever......
>
>
>>>....because at any given time, some 70 percent of the parts have just
>>>been replaced at great expense.
>
>
>>Actually no, those engines would go 500-600,000 km without a hitch.
>
>
> The engines, sure. But not the starters,

Only had one go bad on me, and that was on a car that had sat for years

> the alternators,

Same same. Only ever had two die; one was on the same car mentioned
above. The other was actually the death of one car as I could not
unbolt the alternator without removing the timing belt (mount bolt was
stripped) and the car wasn't worth the effort by that point (and I
bought a Scirocco for $900 instead and drove *that* for 4-5 years)

> the injection
> systems,

never had a Diesel, but the old CIS were awesome.

> the exhaust systems,

Replace with Techtonics and then drive on.

> the engine mounts,

same as above

> virtually the entire
> electrical system...

Never had one electrical problem with a VW other than the one starter
and two alternators mentioned above, and one bad set of aftermarket
spark plug wires. Well I take that back, Michele's Corrado had a bad
ignition switch. She still has that car BTW and that's notoriously the
most high-maintenance VW ever made.

nate

> all the stuff that makes the engine do something
> useful.
>
> (And that's assuming you can get it to start, a prerequisite for which is
> that it be above freezing...)


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>ANY Chrysler product with a 318 or a slant-6 automatically qualifies as
>>a frugal, reliable, and cheap-to-maintain vehicle.
>
>
> Not necessarily. My 1989 Dodge D100 pickup has a 318 and it's reliable and
> cheap to maintain, but NOT frugal. Then again, I don't *need* a pickup
> truck. Not real sure why I still own this one...

Sell it to me! I need a parts runner, and every time I find a decent
Wagonaire (no, I didn't mean Wagoneer) it gets sold before I can scrape
up the cash. Or is this in Canuckia?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"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.

Seriously, I would stay with about 1968 or earlier mass market cars.
Something certainly before the mechanical computer smog controls of the
early 70's. Think something like a 67 Chevy or Ford, manual transmission,
not loaded with gadgets (air, power seats, etc). They are infinitely
repairable, as long as you stay ahead of the rust. You can do maintenance
yourself, without exotic tools and instruments. Parts are cheap and
abundant. And they are old enough to be smog-test exempt (California,
others).

Ed

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

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel ) writes:
> William R. Watt wrote:
>
>> "Rod Speed" ) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Still think the body design is well past its useby date and
>>>that a Golf of the same vintage makes a lot more sense.
>>
>>
>> I would not recommned one of the early VW hatchbacks. Here in Canada they
>> were called Rabbit. I had a '76. The aluminum head went on it. Expensive
>> repair.
>
> That's fairly uncommon, and the heads are not all that expensive if you
> just buy good used.
>
> nate

I way I remember it the aluminum engines were introduced in the Rabbit and
were a problem. The hot shot German mechanic where I took it needed a long
time just to diagnose the problem. When I picked up the car he was pleased
and didn't seem to understand why I was not. I was paying the bill.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Never had one electrical problem with a VW

Awright, let's hear the terms of the pact you signed with the devil.

;-)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> > My 1989 Dodge D100 pickup has a 318 and it's reliable and
> > cheap to maintain, but NOT frugal. Then again, I don't *need* a pickup
> > truck. Not real sure why I still own this one...
>
> Sell it to me!

OK. He

http://u225.torque.net/cars/89Ram/89Ram.html

You know my e-mail.

DS

David wrote:

> "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.

Not true. A manual-trans early-70s A-body should get 20 mpg on the
highway *easily*, and so should most auto-trans versions. The mid-70s
"Feather Duster" and "Dart Lite" (aluminum hood bracing and other
lightweight goodies) got over 30 MPH on the highway with a slant-six and
O/D 4-speed manual. And they weren't pathetic slugs, either. Not a 340
Duster by any stretch of the imagination, but not slow.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Never had one electrical problem with a VW
>
>
> Awright, let's hear the terms of the pact you signed with the devil.
>
> ;-)

Traded him the torque wrench, I mean fiddle made of gold. Decided I
would never use the damn thing anyway

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>My 1989 Dodge D100 pickup has a 318 and it's reliable and
>>>cheap to maintain, but NOT frugal. Then again, I don't *need* a pickup
>>>truck. Not real sure why I still own this one...
>>
>>Sell it to me!
>
>
> OK. He
>
> http://u225.torque.net/cars/89Ram/89Ram.html
>
> You know my e-mail.
>
> DS

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.

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)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel