Michael Johnson wrote:
> Jan Andersson wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> jonezzzman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:SO-
>>>>>>>>>> dnQNEA4HiA0fanZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Coel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, it's that time again, 147k miles, 1993 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dripping out the green stuff by firewall on the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that strong sent of antifreeze inside the car
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dense fog on the inside of the front wind****eld above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> vent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no full temp on the temp gauge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't drive it this way, I get gassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess I get to be a few hundred bucks lighter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second heater core, other went out at 95k
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do yourself a favor and buy the core from the Ford dealer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are made much better than the ones sold by the chain auto
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>>>> stores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The kind of Ford quality where they fail before 100k? :)
>>>>>>>>>>> That is better than failing at 50k which is what his
>>>>>>>>>>> replacement core managed to achieve. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My '93's original core is still fine @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
149k - original hoses
>>>>>>>>>> also intact. Guess I should knock on some wood...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Grim Reaper of heater cores is heading to your garage as I
>>>>>>>>> type this post. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I heard somewhere that using tap water with the coolant causes
>>>>>>>> premature failure of the heater core. Anyone know anything
>>>>>>>> about this? Is it true your supposed to use distilled water or
>>>>>>>> the premixed coolant? I'm getting ready to change a heater core
>>>>>>>> in my 89 GT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have heard this both ways. One is using tap water causes
>>>>>>> deposits and using distilled water causes it to leach the metals
>>>>>>> like aluminum into the water which, in turn, cause deposits to
>>>>>>> buildup. Personally, I think the key is to do regular changes of
>>>>>>> the coolant as antifreeze contains chemicals to prevent scale
>>>>>>> buildup and corrosion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regular Maintenance?!?!?! Who'da thunk that! ;P
>>>>>
>>>>> There is generally a good reason that is should be "regular".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The typical american mentality with cars is to buy one, drive it to
>>>> the ground, ***** and moan when it breaks, then replace it with
>>>> another. Restart cycle.
>>>
>>> I think people are much better overall but the manufacturers have
>>> removed so many of the old maintenance requirements that if one just
>>> changes the engine oil regularly they can get 100k+ miles from a
>>> vehicle. Throw in a little more maintenance and getting 150k-200k
>>> miles is fairly routine.
>>
>>
>> When consumer expectations are getting lower and lower, then poor
>> quality gets widely accepted... then it somehow becomes 'average'
>> quality, and then, eventually, the new standard. Over time, people
>> reluctantly accept that it's not going to get any better than this, be
>> it Ford, Chevy, or Volkswagen. Manufacturers would be foolish to make
>> and sell products that are better, and last longer than expected. They
>> NEED their products to fail or become unwanted as soon as possible
>> (just short of getting a bad rep) so they can sell the next face lift
>> model to the same guy.
>>
>> If you tried to sell a car 30 years ago that would last only 6 years,
>> you would have been lynched. Today a person who buys a new car, won't
>> see it's 4th birthday, they trade it in and it becomes someone else's
>> problem. Why even worry about preventative maintenance, you can't
>> justify a further monetary investment in something you won't keep long
>> enough to benefit from it. Just drive the **** out of it and pass it
>> on to some unsuspecting poor fool who will then struggle with the
>> inevitable breakdowns. You got what you wanted out of it.
>>
>>
>> Coincidentally, cars made 30, 40, and 50 years ago, are STILL on the
>> road. Some in great numbers even, and in decent mechanical shape.
>> Often with just as minimal maintenance. They were built to last a
>> generation.
>> Even cars that were the 'economical and cheap' alternative of their
>> day, were designed tougher than most cars today. At some point some
>> pencil pusher figured out they can cut material costs by making parts
>> weaker, and subcontracting them to 3rd world countries.
>> Sure they started failing more often, but that's how 'modern,
>> complicated technology' is. <cough cough>. With time... sub-standard
>> sneaked it's way into becoming the new Standard.
>>
>> Keep your new junk, gimme something from the 60's.
>
> I can't agree with you on this. The new cars we can buy today are light
> years ahead of the old ones of my youth. Back then you were lucky the
> car wasn't a complete buck of rust by 100,000 miles. In fact, having an
> engine last 100,000 miles was not the norm. Maintenance was much more
> intensive, mileage worse and performance/reliability not even close to
> the cars we have today. Most cars sold now can easily hit 100k miles
> and many are good for close to 200k miles if they are maintained well.
> Compare the current Mustang GT to just about any early Mustang and the
> difference is night and day regarding performance and reliability.
Most of the 80's cars are now gone. 70's cars are disappearing too. But
there's still 60's cars around, and even when not maintained very well,
are still kicking.
More maintenance? Old cars had 99% LESS parts that could go wrong.
Today, Microsoft is making operating systems for cars, fer chrissakes :D
If you have a mechanical fuel pump, a carburator, a basic points & coil
kettering ignition, and a simple generator or an alternator even, you
were good to go. What else could go wrong?
Case example 1: The VW Beetle. Not the plastic Golf IV in drag, but the
real thing. 100k miles easy. 200k miles not uncommon. Heck, even a
poorly maintained piece of 1970 junk 1500 I had, made it past 250k, and
was finally laid to rest due to rust holes in the floorpan. The engine
lived on in another car. There were no signs of anyone ever rebuilding
it. (Every nut and bolt were rusted solid).
Case example 2: Well, this is an exception from the 80:s. The Mercedes.
Not uncommon at all to hear them go a MILLION miles. Granted, that would
usually mean an engine and tranny rebuild at some point.
3: Volvo has had models that easily made 500k and even close to a million.
4: Even my friend's Mitsubi**** Lancer from the 80's got past 500k.
Come to the 90's, and I don't think they could. 2000, and I'm pretty
certain we won't see 'million mile' cars anymore. Mercedes quality has
gone down the drain years ago, they're living off of their legacy and
deserved good name they got in the years past.
Modern cars are packed full of useless junk that not only creates more
need for maintenance and potential breakdowns, it alienates the operator
from actual driving skills, and makes him a passenger with no brains,
rather than a driver.
I'm just ranting I guess, you do have a point.
I'm just so tired of where the industry has gone and how unexciting cars
have become. I can't remember seeing a new car that made me think : WOW,
I gotta get me one of those. I get that with cars older than myself.
(I'm a kiddie though, only 35)
|
