A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Frugal auto transportation: theories?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 7th 05, 02:02 PM
Ed Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 7th 05, 02:10 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 7th 05, 03:25 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 7th 05, 06:05 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 7th 05, 06:23 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 7th 05, 06:56 PM
Ed Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 7th 05, 07:41 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 7th 05, 08:27 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 7th 05, 09:06 PM
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 7th 05, 10:26 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frugal auto transportation: theories? Daniel J. Stern Chrysler 28 January 9th 05 11:18 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.