Well, in order not to start so many subjects, I've decided to concentrate more in just one. It may cause some mess, but a lot of subject can cause a mess too.
So
I. Was there any car front seats that had the seafty belt (modern type, that comes over you chest too) atached only to the seat. I'm curios if you can retrofit some old cars with seats that have seatbealts and that thing that you lay you head againts (I don't know how they are called in English, the Romanian term is of French origins);

II. How relaible/unrelaible where the '30-'40's cars? Since oil wasn't of so excelent qualty back then (oil = gas (fuel), but also grease oil) the grase oil change had to be done at shorter intrervals then today. Also I don't know when central greasing was adopted, so at some cars some points needed manual greasing. But leting the grease alone, if proper or at least decent meintainance, how long you could use a car from that period without needing repairs (like reboring the engine)?;

III. What options do you think are missing from modern cars? One intresting option was the light dimmer switched postioned on the floor of the car. And the ammeter.

Here in Wisconsin the way I understand it, even if a car never offered seat belts you have to add lap belts at a minimum. Even if a seat wasn't designed for a headrest (American term for them...some car words are different in UK English*) or seatbelts (either kind) they can be added with a bit of enginuity.

I seem to recall reading that Nash cars of the 40s could last better than 150k. When you say grease do you mean wheel bearings or ball joints....cars here in the US don't self grease either of those... though the higher line 58 Lincoln's had a button to push that would automatically grease all the ball joints...there is a neat feature I'm surprised didn't last.

One thing that I miss (aside from floor mount high beam switches you meantioned (and my 78 Lincoln has) is hood ornaments....there were a lot of cool ones down through the years but pedestrian crash safety standards have pretty much killed them in current production cars.

*The Britt's can keep their sissy bonnets, I want an American car with a real hood... though I do gotta give them props for calling their sedans saloons....If they got their UK name the way I think they did there must be a lot of 4 doors there with whiskey dents....:D

The model A Fords were quite reliable for the time made but not by todays standards, or even 1950's standard.

The Ford V8, started in 1932? was a good design and they modified it thru the years. With regular oil changes they could go 100,000 miles "sometimes". The oil bath filters were not so great if you lived on a dirt road and Im sure shortened most of the engines lives with dirt (my opinion). You had to be religious about changing engine oil to make them last.

Most of the straight 8 engines were good as far as lasting and Hudson made that 6 cylinder (I think 6) with a factory 2 carburetors that could blow most cars away in a race. They were durable.

I think a lot of the cars and motors were only as good as the owners were with mainanence of the car.

I dont think seat belts attached to seats would be very good in an accident but possibly better than nothing. the G force of your body would pull the belt's attaching point off of many seats. Or a side collision could strangle your waist if things got bent. the ones Ive added attached to the floor behind the seat.

In the 1980s there was an elderly racer who came out of retirement at my local stock car races. he used one of those Hudsons i already mentioned and routinely won the races against modern cars and engines. Beefed up 350 Chevy's mostly. it was fun to watch. There was a Buick straight 8 in those races too who i dont remember winning but if he bumped another car they flew off the track pretty quick, lol That car was heavy.

What would I like to see in modern cars? Vent windows. Ford quit it in 1996 on their trucks, unsure with cars. its nice to open a window without that loud sucking sound without one. If I ever get a modern truck it will be something I will have to modify and Ive heard it can be done. Fins on pickups are something else that was never really done except on Rancheros but Ive been waiting for someone to try it. Add some class to the ugly box trucks now. I agree about hood ornaments too.

In the 1980s there was an elderly racer who came out of retirement at my local stock car races. he used one of those Hudsons i already mentioned and routinely won the races against modern cars and engines. Beefed up 350 Chevy's mostly. it was fun to watch. There was a Buick straight 8 in those races too who i dont remember winning but if he bumped another car they flew off the track pretty quick, lol That car was heavy.

What would I like to see in modern cars? Vent windows. Ford quit it in 1996 on their trucks, unsure with cars. its nice to open a window without that loud sucking sound without one. If I ever get a modern truck it will be something I will have to modify and Ive heard it can be done. Fins on pickups are something else that was never really done except on Rancheros but Ive been waiting for someone to try it. Add some class to the ugly box trucks now. I agree about hood ornaments too.

That stock car story is hilarious.

I know my Lincoln Mark V offered power vent windows in 78.

IIRC Dodge had a 1 year only finned pickup based on their forward look cars (also the 59 Chevy el Camino)... I'd imagine the camper shell crowd probably would have some choice words if anyone made a finned pickup today... I sort of wish they would make finned cars again. There are a few nice cars today but styling has been fairly bland since the 70s.

One thing I forget about and miss is full size sedans with big trunks (and for that matter any car with a good size trunk that doesn't have a mail slot for a door making the space inside almost useless) also the station wagons based on the full size sedans....I would have liked one more than my suburban but they are all pushing into rust bucket territory or held on to by their owners.

You can atach seatbealts to old cars without damaging them?
Greasing... like this: http://users.aber.ac.uk/caj55/htm%20files/every_500_miles.htm
When in U.S.A. you got read of greasing diagrams like that?

And after 80,000-100,000 miles what did you had to do at an "Ford" V8?

Ventilation windows where cool. At some cars you could rest your arm on them.

That stock car story is hilarious.

I know my Lincoln Mark V offered power vent windows in 78.

IIRC Dodge had a 1 year only finned pickup based on their forward look cars (also the 59 Chevy el Camino)... I'd imagine the camper shell crowd probably would have some choice words if anyone made a finned pickup today... I sort of wish they would make finned cars again. There are a few nice cars today but styling has been fairly bland since the 70s.

One thing I forget about and miss is full size sedans with big trunks (and for that matter any car with a good size trunk that doesn't have a mail slot for a door making the space inside almost useless) also the station wagons based on the full size sedans....I would have liked one more than my suburban but they are all pushing into rust bucket territory or held on to by their owners.

I am going to dig online for a pic of that Hudson car. He was a famous local racer and one of his cars still exists and races in vintage races as far as I know. The racer died long ago. But if i dont quote you again it means I had no luck.

Seatbelts, you find a strong part of the car behind the seat and either drill holes to attach them or if your lucky there is a hole there or something strong to attach too. They have to be bolted very secure or they wont do any good in an accident, just break off.

Greasing, every car came with a manual that usually told how often to oil and grease things. Oil and grease were poor quality compared to modern oil now.

The ford V8's or any other engine, once they ran bad or started using a lot of oil they were overhauled or rebuilt. If they were cracked badly or too worn out to rebuild they were scrapped. I drove more than one car that used a quart of oil every 100 miles (200 KM?) but they never ran real well. Modern cars with all the pollution control and other gadgets will not run at all, usually, when it starts using a lot of oil.

Many late 90s and mid 2000s GM cars had the seatbelts entirely mounted to the seat. Cadillacs, Buicks, etc. Those would be exactly what you are looking for. However, A. Good luck finding those in your country, and B. those were those god-awful power seats that you couldn't really adjust up or down.

Let me explain. See, a NORMAL 6+ way power seat operates by having forward/back, front up/down, and rear up/down, and the rear part of the seat is connected to the back of the seat. So when you control the rear up/down, it moves the back of the seat with it. Now what GM (and a few others) decided to do, was to make the seat bottom separate from the seat back. So only the rear of the seat bottom would move up/down, and the seat back stays in one place. Sounds good on paper, but in practice, you'll find that it somehow manages only to move your ass up and down, instead of moving your whole body up or down.

In other words, those seats are terrible for tall people like me, and for short people. Because you get no real height adjustment.

---

Now, the thing you need to understand about old cars is that everyone understood that they required regular maintenance. They had to be greased and oiled, and valves lapped, and cylinders honed, and brakes adjusted - a lot of big heavy maintenance. However, it was also a lot easier back then. Cars were simpler, so were repairs and maintenance. In those days, pulling a cylinder head and grinding valves was maybe a 1 hour job. Ordinary cars today, doing that, easy 10 to 12 hours. So they were considered very reliable. Even today, our measure of reliability includes how easy it is to fix.

I'm short. Circa 5'6" and 1/2 (169 c.m.s.).
But you could run a "Ford" V8 for 100,000 miles (circa 160,901 kilometers) without having oil loss?
Cylinder honing and grinding valves because of Carbon deposit on them?
Anyway, a car from the '30' or '40's (if I will get one) I will use it for no more then 1,000-2,000 miles per year. Longer trips, probably no more then 200-300 miles in one way - to be onest, between cities I preffer the train.

Seats out of most convertibles will have the entire seat belt mechanism attached to the seat.

But you could run a "Ford" V8 for 100,000 miles (circa 160,901 kilometers) without having oil loss?
If you mean a Ford V8 from the '30s (hell, even up to the '70s), then no. Seal technology was not very good back then, neither was piston ring tech. Cars were expected to burn oil, and leak oil. Think about all the old timey movies, where a car pulls into a filling station, and the attendant comes out. They would open the hood and check the oil, and sell you some if you were low. It was such a normal fact of life that life worked around it. Imagine in the future when all the cars are electric (or something else?), people will look back on the past, and think - wow people had to stop at a place... for gas?
Cylinder honing and grinding valves because of Carbon deposit on them?
Well, maybe I was exaggerating a bit with cylinder honing. Maybe. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. Piston rings were pretty basic back then. But valve jobs were very common. Carbon deposits, I think, were not a big problem. Valves would actually burn up, or more likely the valve seat. A large part of the reason for leaded gas was that it lowered the temperature of combustion (and reduced detonation which caused knock), and that reduced the damage it caused to valves and valve seats. Still, the metallurgy back then was not great, and valves required maintenance. Nowadays, without leaded gas, the metals had to be improved to handle higher temperatures - and they do it very well.

Actually, just about the only thing to do to convert a leaded gas car to unleaded is to replace the valve seats. For a flathead engine, it would likely mean taking the engine out of the car and to a machine shop. Not sure.
Anyway, a car from the '30' or '40's (if I will get one) I will use it for no more then 1,000-2,000 miles per year. Longer trips, probably no more then 200-300 miles in one way - to be onest, between cities I preffer the train.
Well, a car that old is usually not driven much. But then... there are still people who drive a Ford Model A every day. There's an engine machine shop near me that ONLY does Model A's. Just imagine for a minute. There's a shop that makes a profitable business by working on one type of engine that's from 80-90 years ago.

My grandad said cars back then (30s-60s) were overhauled every 30k miles and you were lucky if you got past 100k. Nowadays if it doesn't do 200k on routine maintenance then it's considered junk. I'm going to try to get the Miata to 300k and I'm halfway there......

As far as seatbelts, the ones in my Dodge truck are attached to the body, in the miata one side is attached to the body and the other to the seat, the Peugeot? i don't remember......

And for old timey car features, I've never owned one with a high beam switch on the floor, even my '79 Hilux was on the column. My truck has the vent windows though, I wish it didn't because they leak and the correct fitting seals are NLA. And my Peugeot (1985 model) has an oil bath air filter and it works quite well, I just hate cleaning/refilling it.

So after 100,000 miles the engine was junk?
At "Dacia" 1300 ("Reanult" 12 licence) no matter what the engine (French or Romanian) you needed to do some working around 50,000 kiloemters (31,000 miles).

Probably I will have to spent 300-400 Dollars per year for maintaing the car (carbon cleaning, 2-3 oil changes).

There was no set amount of miles that an engine was junk (the 100,000 mentioned). It was a lot how it was maintained, short vs long trips, car or truck, how hard it was driven, etc. Many could make it 100,000. Many years ago I bought a 1950 3/4 ton Ford V8 (same engine as a 1948 model) with over 100,000 from the original owner and all it needed was a basic overhaul, rings, valves, bearings, etc. And that was a farm truck which would not have been used easy. There is nothing set in stone about how many miles you could get out of them.

Madmen is right, they all used oil to some extent, with maybe just a few exceptions. It wasnt all bad as it kept some fresh oil going into it.

Oil improvements has helped engines a lot.

Burning carbon out of an engine hasnt been needed for decades. But its fun to do! A good reason to drive fast.

My dream is an vintage car, British, '30's-'40's. So I wonder what I may expect... can I run 20,000 miles without serios problems? But also I have a general curiosity.
That good thing about old cars is they are generally easy to fix and some problems can be fixed on the edge of the road.
And automobiles built on underneath frame you can lift the body and work on the inside, just like removing the chassies from the case at a tube (valve) radio to get better acces at the compoments. Bad thing about cars built on frame: they aren't so safe in the case of impact as a unibody one.
Burning oil is bad when you get too much oil burnded or leaked.
People will stop for electric charge. But gas station have at least 20 years ahead from now.

I have a '51 Ford; it doesn't have the famous V8 but a flathead straight 6; actually a better engine than the flathead 8 in some respects. I don't know the full history of this engine, only that the car has around 86k. (I have to wonder if it was rebuilt at some point). I change the oil every 2,000 miles and it uses about a quart in that time which I find outstanding for something that age. Most of the older vehicles I've owned either burned or leaked oil, or both. The first couple vehicles I owned, as a teenager, were a 67 Impala with a 283 V8 & a 78 Ford F100 with a 302 V8. Both needed at least a quart of oil per week.

Most oil until at least the 60s was non-detergent. A large percentage of cars didn't have oil filters. The dirt in the oil (and there was plenty, thanks to the air filters in use back then) would gradually sink to the bottom of the oil pan. If you changed the oil regularly you might keep it fairly clean. My '51 had some deep black oil in it when I got it, which I promptly changed. At first it used about a quart every 150 miles or so but quickly improved. After a couple oil changes the dipstick looks so clean you can barely see the oil, even after a couple thousand miles. I still use non-detergent oil out of concern that there could still be some sludge inside that modern oil could stir up. There are stories of this causing the engine to suffer a "stroke" as the oil pump screen stops up.

My old car gets used quite a bit; I use it for errands, going to church, day-trips. I've taken it on some weekend trips, maybe 3 hours one-way. Stuff does wear out faster than on modern cars but they're so simple that, really, only so much bad can happen. The only time this Ford was Found On Road Dead with me as the owner? Vapor lock, the first summer I had it. I added an electric fuel pump as a backup and when it acts up I just flip the switch.

Old British cars have a reputation for poor reliability (especially electrical parts) but some of them are very easy to get parts for and should be simple to work on. That's what I'd look for, something basic, not loaded up with tons of options. It's nice to have power this and power that but on a car that age, all of that stuff is very failure prone.

Burning oil is bad when you get too much oil burned or leaked.
Yes, it is bad. Burning it will foul spark plugs, leave carbon on the valves, and cause piston rings to stick - causing more oil burning and loss of compression. Leaking is another problem - when oil leaks, it tends to leak only the thinnest part of the oil, leaving the thickest part of the oil behind. If the oil is not changed regularly, the engine could suffer damage.

British cars are notorious for leaking oil. And electrical problems. And carburetor problems. And reliability in general. lol. Actually that reputation is likely from the '70s, god they were awful in the '70s. Anyhow, it would probably be easy for you to find a British car. And half the fun of owning an old car is fixing it.

I know British cars from that period are awfloul. I've seen documentaries, read opinions.
Electric problems... "Lucas":
1) "Lucas" - prince of darkeness;
2) What is the slogan of "Lucas"? "Get me home before dark;
3) "Lucas" haves 3 light positions: dim, flicker, lights outs.
In a way, British motor industry was quite like the Romanian one. But I think Romanian automobiles from the '80's and '90's had better electric equypment.

Well, my dream is older...'30's-'40's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x00aXHI2tTY&t=137s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EvFEcbalCk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7dgRTmIUz8

Italian cars also had reputations in America as being not very good. spotty electrics, rustaholics, unreliable, terrible parts availability, few qualified mechanics, & the ones I've been associated with, seemed like everything seemed too small, cheaply made, & fragile.. But Americans tend-I think-to be rather hard on things, we never check oil levels, or transmission oil levels, brake fluid levels, etc, & then RAISE HELL when the vehicle konks out...And I'm as guilty of it as anyone, I'll be the 1st to admit as much..

Italian cars also had reputations in America as being not very good. spotty electrics, rustaholics, unreliable, terrible parts availability, few qualified mechanics, & the ones I've been associated with, seemed like everything seemed too small, cheaply made, & fragile.. But Americans tend-I think-to be rather hard on things, we never check oil levels, or transmission oil levels, brake fluid levels, etc, & then RAISE HELL when the vehicle konks out...And I'm as guilty of it as anyone, I'll be the 1st to admit as much..

At one time it was so bad with Italian cars that people used to joke FIAT was an acronym for "Fix It Again Tony" :D

I have a '51 Ford; it doesn't have the famous V8 but a flathead straight 6; actually a better engine than the flathead 8 in some respects. I don't know the full history of this engine, only that the car has around 86k. (I have to wonder if it was rebuilt at some point). I change the oil every 2,000 miles and it uses about a quart in that time which I find outstanding for something that age. Most of the older vehicles I've owned either burned or leaked oil, or both. The first couple vehicles I owned, as a teenager, were a 67 Impala with a 283 V8 & a 78 Ford F100 with a 302 V8. Both needed at least a quart of oil per week.

Most oil until at least the 60s was non-detergent. A large percentage of cars didn't have oil filters. The dirt in the oil (and there was plenty, thanks to the air filters in use back then) would gradually sink to the bottom of the oil pan. If you changed the oil regularly you might keep it fairly clean. My '51 had some deep black oil in it when I got it, which I promptly changed. At first it used about a quart every 150 miles or so but quickly improved. After a couple oil changes the dipstick looks so clean you can barely see the oil, even after a couple thousand miles. I still use non-detergent oil out of concern that there could still be some sludge inside that modern oil could stir up. There are stories of this causing the engine to suffer a "stroke" as the oil pump screen stops up.

My old car gets used quite a bit; I use it for errands, going to church, day-trips. I've taken it on some weekend trips, maybe 3 hours one-way. Stuff does wear out faster than on modern cars but they're so simple that, really, only so much bad can happen. The only time this Ford was Found On Road Dead with me as the owner? Vapor lock, the first summer I had it. I added an electric fuel pump as a backup and when it acts up I just flip the switch.

Old British cars have a reputation for poor reliability (especially electrical parts) but some of them are very easy to get parts for and should be simple to work on. That's what I'd look for, something basic, not loaded up with tons of options. It's nice to have power this and power that but on a car that age, all of that stuff is very failure prone.

those straight sixes were better as far as longevity and I dont think they had problems with cracking like some of the V8's (trucks were better).

Im not so sure about using non-detergent in it. That causes a lot more wear on the pistons/rings for one. Some mechanics used to use non-detergent after a rebuild for the 1st 100 to 1000 miles to wear them in quicker, the rings. But I can understand your logic too, worrying about junk coming loose in the engine. Ive just never heard of doing that. Interesting.

the only close thing Ive had happen was a 1985 Bronco with 351w I bought 9 years ago. Of all the cars and trucks Ive owned i never saw any oil half that dirty. It was trailered home as it wasnt licensed. I changed the oil and filter (cheapest oil I could buy) and ran it 10 minutes, changed oil and filter again and ran it an hour. Even after 2 oil changes it was quite dirty from cleaning the engine. i changed it the 3rd time and all was good. Anyway, if you ever go the detergent oil route, keep this in mind, what I did.

3) "Lucas" haves 3 light positions: dim, flicker, lights outs.
lol I'll have to remember that one! But yeah, I think in the 30s and 40s the Brits still had some self respect. Those old Daimlers are nice too. Come to think of it... I'll bet you could get a Ford Model A with little effort, as well. Pretty sure lots were sent overseas. I know they're still common in the UK. The advantage to something like that is parts are still available. Even in a worst case, you could order a part from US, there's still plenty here. And they are, apparently, still very drive-able cars, from a modern point of view.

Another acronym:

Loose Unprotected Corroded Always Shorted

:D

I've been tempted to get a Model A myself; I've seen a "driver" quality car for around $6500. There are quite a few hidden away-there are probably a half-dozen around our small town. Very simply built with good aftermarket support.

fixmeplease, I've read quite a bit on the non-detergent/detergent conversion and I'm still undecided. Some report making the switch caused oil pressure crash, or oil burning/leaking. Others had no trouble at all or even saw oil consumption decrease. I did have one car from the "fill up the oil and check the gas" school. I finally switched because non-detergent is so expensive; I think at NAPA it's higher than Mobil 1, per quart. I didn't really see any difference at all, good or bad, on that car. It's very tempting to make the switch to a decent 10w30 for my next change. I know that the mere mention of that to some "old-timers" makes them grumble.

For a couple years I was using Kendall 20w20 non-detergent. The stuff was crystal clear! That's what FoMoCo called for in the manual, but it's obsolete now. The only 20w I can find now is el Cheapo stuff for compressors & such, so back to NAPA 30w. I just want to do what's best for a great running engine. 60-70 lbs pressure on the highway.

In one old brochure I've seen they recomended to wash the oil with parafin.
This is a good solution.
My cars of interest did have oil filter.

lol I'll have to remember that one! But yeah, I think in the 30s and 40s the Brits still had some self respect. Those old Daimlers are nice too. Come to think of it... I'll bet you could get a Ford Model A with little effort, as well. Pretty sure lots were sent overseas. I know they're still common in the UK. The advantage to something like that is parts are still available. Even in a worst case, you could order a part from US, there's still plenty here. And they are, apparently, still very drive-able cars, from a modern point of view.

"Ford" A it's intresting, but it haves one problem: clasicall manaul gearbox.
It's a manual gerabox? No. It's an automatic gerbox no? But then what it is? It's semiautomatic. It's a preselector gerabox. "Daimler" had that. It get close to the ideea of perfect gerabox for me, except for the fact that you can't skeep speeds (for eg going from 4th to 2nd directly) while the car is on the move without the risk of harming the gerabox. At least at classical preselector. Electropneumatic commanded like at the "Cord" 810/812 or post-war "Arsmtrong-Siddeley"... don't know.


Anyway, no matter the car, I must have a garage. Because parking is horrible in my are and there a lot of dumb people. This year 3 very young boys devasted a school because they went angry because of a toy. A week later, some very young girls devasted a few cars just for fun...

Yeah, an A model has a manual gearbox. Automatics really weren't available til right before the War, & in America, they weren't available in cheaper cars til the start of the Fifties. It was 1951 when you could finally get a 2 speed auto in Fords & Chevys-"Powerglide" in Chevy, & Ford-O-Matic in Fords. I think it was even later in Chryslers. My parents had a '51 Chevy w/Powerglide, my mom learned how to drive in it. My dad said you could NOT make that car slide, even on glare ice, the Powerglide had so much slip in it. But my Mom did manage to get arrested in it-for going 19 MPH thru the enlisted Men's barracks area, where the speed limit was 17 ! The Judge Advocate General & my dad were buds-Dad told him to REALLY give my Mom "The Business"... They hauled her into this courtroom, the Judge was WAY above her, squinting down on her, & from what Henry told me, they REALLY read her the Riot Act... She figured she was gonna be stood up against the wall & SHOT or something... I think all that happened was they fussed at her, scared the Shit outta her, & fined her 3 dollars... I heard about it all a good 25 years later, & Mama was still pretty fuzzed up about it all, even if me, Henry & anyone else who was around were just laughing our butts off.. But, Mama , to the best of my knowledge, NEVER, EVER got pulled over again...On the Army base, or any time after that...

"Ford" A it's intresting, but it haves one problem: clasical manual gearbox.
The model A has a normal manual gearbox. Unlike the model T which you had to hold the pedal to apply first gear. I know you like the preselector gearboxes though :P

You guys oughta check out "Scions of Laughter", a site dedicated to us longsuffering wretches who own, love, cuss/discuss Vehicles British... BIG section devoted to Joseph Lucas & Sons, AKA "Lords of Darkness.."

Oh, this: http://www.team.net/sol/humour/index.html

Well, there is ANOTHER thing about an A model that would give today's drivers pause-the "Mule Ears" right under the steering wheel. Its been a long time since I piloted an A-Bone, but one of 'em, I think was a throttle, & the other was a spark advance/retard control. It sounds all complicated & confusing, but in actuality, most of us could likely figure it out within a trip or 2 around the block of yr home street.. There is a moderately long, moderately high hill outside of town, & a couple "Old Timers" told me when I was a kid, that it had to be a STRONG Model A that could pull that hill in high, with both the "Ears" pulled back... That was the thing...Most of the motors in cars , prewar, & for awhile after, had plenty of power, but you had to know how to get it OUT of them. Hence, that was why, especially after the war, a huge industry grew & thrived about "Hopping up" cars. Fords were the prime beneficiaries, as they were popular, & maybe had the greatest amount of untapped potential, but there were quite a few tricks that could be done to & for Chevys, as well.

Here is something intresting: http://www.andrewalston.co.uk/manual/p03.htm
I think only 1931 models still had such a big throttle lever: http://www.andrewalston.co.uk/instruct16-20/p02.jpg
Older ones had a smaller one.
Idiotic thing: I was Gooogled directly for manual for those cars (and "Lanchester" LD10)... nothing. Googled another things about those cars, found results.

Lancasters were British cars, in the same class as Rolls & Bentleys, but the guy who designed & was the head dude of the company was "Different..." they had tiller steering, you sat in them about the same height as if you were standing, he felt you could judge distances better that way, the motors were made rather narrow, & ran longitudinally thru the passenger compartment, consequentially, they were quite roomy, there were several other quirks about their overall design. Few remain, I dunno if many, if any have survived out of England. Especially the really early ones, they were as ODD as latter day Saabs were-Maybe even more so.

The models that I'm looking that are made after they where taken by "Daimler". The 14 (Fourteen) and 18 (Eighteen) where still top models, but they wheren't the very luxury vehicles that where before the '30's.
It's intresting that you can still find LD10's in a pretty large number for such an old car, trough all that there where only around 3,000 of them made. Probably if the people would have had more money (the model was released after the war and it was expensive for it's class) more could be made (maybe 10,000) and the more airstreamed model could also might have had been put into production (airstreamed: a liitle bit faster at the same engine power). LD10 should have had been released in 1940, but the war camed and... Anyway, unlike the older models you could install heating systsem as a option. You can adapt heating to cars that wheren't designed fot it, but you have to drill holes.

I still wonder: it was so hard to put automatic greasing on old cars, even if it was needed for 2 separate greasing systems (front and back).
And I also wonder: how mechanicals brakes (that had rods in stad of pipes with liquid) behave compare to brakes with liduid on them.

P.S. I appologize I my grammar is bad (I don't know if it corect to put so many would have had)

I've never driven a car with mechanical brakes. I think if they are adjusted properly, they should work the same as comparable hydraulic brakes. The thing that really made a difference was the power brake booster. There are a couple cars with boosted mechanical brakes. Packards, I think. But it's funny how some cars even up into the 60s didn't have power brakes standard.

Mechanical brakes that use rods are decent. if they use cables, not so much as they stretch out which changes braking.

Once you have a car with power brakes, you will never want one without them, trucks even more so. Ive had my share of both.

Mechanical brakes that use rods are decent. if they use cables, not so much as they stretch out which changes braking.

Once you have a car with power brakes, you will never want one without them, trucks even more so. Ive had my share of both.

I've only heard of cable brakes before.

Your power brake comment is especially true of hydraulic (instead of pneumatic) powered brake boosters...my 78 Lincoln has one that operates off the power steering pump....It will lock up the the wheels with much less effort than the vacuum based systems in modern cars...one could argue you loose road feel, but when a deer or turkey hoops in front of your car when you're doing 45mph and you don't feel like you need to brace yourself to push the pedal hard enough to stop in time you come to appreciate it.

I think my dad's 59 Mercury power brakes were pneumatic, but they had much stronger assist than any car I've driven since. Maybe they had drum brakes on all 4 wheels and that made a difference as well? Power steering was also full-assist, only finger-tip pressure required, with practically no feel of the road at all.

Yeah, a '59 ANYTHING would have drum brakes. Lincolns got front discs in '65, I think Caddys only got 'em in '68 or '69... I remember reading in a car mag of the time that the guy who wrote the article really ripped into a PR flack from Caddy telling him that the brakes the car came (an Eldorado) with were incapable of stopping it. This was in '67, the Eldos got 'em in '68.

I've never driven anything with mechanical brakes; I came close to driving a Model A once but we found the gas tank was filled about 50% with water. I've owned several vehicles with manual hydraulic brakes and never found them to a be problem, aside from getting used to them a bit if you've been driving a modern car. When I was a teenager I alternated between an old Ford pickup with manual brakes (odd because it wasn't a total stripper) and an Impala with typical over-boosted power brakes. Drive the Ford for a week then jump in the Chevy and at the first stop sign you nearly threw yourself through the windshield!

(I once had a later model International pickup, plain Jane. Power brakes were standard, and worked well, but it had manual steering. On a light car, no problem. Heck, with skinny bias plies you hardly notice it. But, with 235/75R15's that truck was downright brutal! I nearly threw my shoulder out more than once in a parking lot, and sometimes the steering wheel would snap backwards and hit my fingers HARD.)

I drove a customer's c.1975 Newport once. Both the brakes and steering were so over-boosted that it was almost dangerous. I felt like I could twirl the steering wheel with my pinky and it would just spin like a top.

There's always a different amount of power boost for steering or vacuum assist. Depends on what the manufacturer wanted. Changing steering assist is usually as easy as changing the regulator spring in the power steering pump.

Only car I recall driving with manual brake - single cylinder master - all drum, was a Ford... Fairlane? 500? From the 60s. Between the no power nothing, loose steering, and IIRC bias ply's - basically no brakes, no steering, and no seat belts - that thing was a death trap. Test driving it up and down the block was a lot of fun, but 'fun' as in 'I'm probably gonna die' kind of fun. I grant, if it had good tires and tight steering it would be better. But if it was my car, it would get, at minimum, vacuum boost power brakes with a double cylinder master. And good tires and tight steering. Maybe seat belts, maybe. No power steering wasn't that bad in that car, it just made parallel parking a pain in the arms.

I wonder how it will be for me to drive a car with no power steering. Smaller cars ain't so bad, but a bigger one may be nasty for a non-powerfoul person like me.
I know about mecahical brakes with power assist. On the old British cars they where vacuum asisted. In 1960 it was required that all British cars to have hydraulic brakes... and this sent some of my dreams into the scraping yard :(
Old ads for my dreams: http://www.hifi-archiv.info/Auto-Werbung/Armstrong%20Siddeley/index.html
http://www.hifi-archiv.info/Auto-Werbung/Daimler/index.html
http://www.hifi-archiv.info/Auto-Werbung/Lanchester/index.html
It's manily a Hi.-Fi. and audio site, but you can find another thing there too!

Well, I forgot to mention this: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/post-war/182200-daimler-tales-1947-daimler-db18-luxury-saloon.html

Man, you folks there in states must have had been really proud in the past by the cars that you built.

Man, you folks there in states must have had been really proud in the past by the cars that you built.

Oh we were/are.... I'd have to really strain to come up with a foreign car I'd want to own (save for Canadian made American cars).

Oh, Lord, woncha buy me a Mercedes-Benz ?!? Mah friends all drive Porches, I must make Amends ...Well, we ARE proud of the cars we have made in America, but there are also quite a few we kinda wish everybody would "Forget" about..

What models?

I've heared a thing about early automatics: the selecting order wasn't the same on all cars and this caused accidents.

Oh, Lord, woncha buy me a Mercedes-Benz ?!? Mah friends all drive Porches, I must make Amends ...Well, we ARE proud of the cars we have made in America, but there are also quite a few we kinda wish everybody would "Forget" about..

Like the Ford Fairmont that looks like the body work department ran outta ideas on how to design a car and grabbed their 3 year old kids sketch of a car, straightened the lines, and tweaked it a bit then handed it to production....or the pinto where a rear end collision jams the doors and the gas tank catches fire...

Today's "Mercedes" are just a pice of ugliness. No style, just made for people who just want to impress with the name of the brand.
Very old models at least if they whreren't in the had the looks, they had the reability of the brand.
The W123 (a.k.a "Cobra" in Romania) had a certain look (not very beatiful, bot not ugly), but for sure it was good car worth of the brand's name.
In Bucharest there are 2 x 380SL. Both automatic transimision. In terms of look... not only does they do have the appeal, but the overpass any of today's model.
I'm not such a big fan of the brand, but the very old models from them for sure where good. And W123 was a very wade range of cars. Today's cars don't seem so versatile in terms of options.

U.S.A. cars had one problem I think: to big engines. I agree that outside densly populated areas, in U.S.A. (or Canada or even Mexico) you can't go with small engine cars like in Europe. So a 3-4 liters (maybe 5 if you want a really big car or a pick-up truck) is needed, but when you put as a standard a 5-6 liters engine is arelady too much in the late '60's.
But do you have any ideea, what where the most relaible U.S.A brands up to the '50's?
You needed oil change only because you migh had leaks or also because the qualty of the oil wasn't so good back then - plain mineral oil, no aditives.
If you want to run a classic car I've heard that you must be careful, at least here in Europe, because they put Ethanol on it and very old cars don't like it.

Here is something to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission

And let's not forget about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTZeP5f20PA

http://hudsonterraplane.com/tech/1935/1935-38ElectricHandTechInfo.pdf

I've heard of-but never experienced-ethanol is sposed to dissolve certain types of gaskets. As far as REALLY awful cars, there aren't too many anymore-But, on the other hand, there aren't too many that stand away from the crowd as REALLY Great. In America, we have SO many rules & regulations that in practicality, virtually ALL cars are reasonably safe, don't pollute too much, get DECENT gas mileage, so on & so forth, but its also why they are all so depressingly ALIKE..

When I was talking about too big engines I was talking about the '60's.
Talking about stuff that's alike, today's "Cadillac" 's don't have any appeal...

Yeah....The last Caddy my family had/has is the one I have now, a '73 Fleetwood Brougham. There is really nothing special or noteworthy about it, except its SIZE & weight. It has the 2nd longest wheelbase of any car made in America, 133" Only the Caddy Fleetwood 75 limo & 9 passenger sedan had longer ones, at 149". I think its empty weight is a svelte 4999 LBS., & its overall length is 233". A Smart car fits comfortably in the length between the trailing edge of its rear door, & the end of its rear bumper. I think its motor is 472 cubic inches, or right at 7.8 or so liters. Cars in that era were very throttled back by emission controls, I think Old Huldy can only make something like 275 hp. But, what it LOVES to do is get on the Interstate-Our motorways in America-turn on the Cruise control, put it on 70 MPH, put the Climate control on 70 degrees, turn on a Seventies radio station, adjust the seat to your liking, drape your hand over the steering wheel, sit back & let the Big Dawg Eat up the miles... Omaha ? No Problem, Boss-We'll be there by suppertime... Might have to stop & fill the tank up a time or 2-But you'll need to stop & stretch your legs & Hit the Head by then anyway..

I wonder how it will be for me to drive a car with no power steering.
Don't worry. Drive the car for a month or so, and you'll get so buff that nobody will want to pick a fight with you. :P
U.S.A. cars had one problem I think: to big engines. I agree that outside densly populated areas, in U.S.A. (or Canada or even Mexico) you can't go with small engine cars like in Europe. So a 3-4 liters (maybe 5 if you want a really big car or a pick-up truck) is needed, but when you put as a standard a 5-6 liters engine is arelady too much in the late '60's.
Well, here's what happened. We Americans love to drive powerful cars. The 1960s was the the peak of performance, high compression engines, and no emissions testing. And once you have a powerful car, you never want to go back. But then, emission regulations came out, and all cars being carbureted, the manufacturers had no technology to keep up performance numbers (in the mid 60s, 1hp per cubic inch was very possible, so imagine ordinary cars with 300-400hp - something that wouldn't really happen again until the late 2000's), so cars got bogged down with emissions equipment, had to have very low compression, and had to be adjusted to run very lean, all meaning very little power per cubic inch. It actually made for very inefficient engines, because you still had a massive, HEAVY motor that could not make that much power, and yet it still had to carry its weight. Still, we wanted power. So the only option was to keep making big engines, even if they didn't come close to the old performance numbers (think 100-150 hp).

This kept up into the 70s and 80s, when imported cars started coming in, and back then, a lot of them were so small that they were not required to meet most emission regulations here (I'd imagine because our laws were written around large cars with big motors). So these cars like the VW Beetle and little Hondas, had an (unfair) advantage. They were much lighter and had smaller engines, but didn't need to meet most emissions stuff, and could keep up with the big cars that were just getting slower. American manufacturers changed things, made smaller cars to compete, and technology started getting better (computers, fuel injection). Now, we can get great power numbers from small engines.

Incidentally, my friend recently bought a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado. It has a 500 cubic inch motor. A massive 8.2 liters making a laughable 190hp (when it was new).
But do you have any ideea, what where the most relaible U.S.A brands up to the '50's?
You needed oil change only because you migh had leaks or also because the qualty of the oil wasn't so good back then - plain mineral oil, no aditives.
If you want to run a classic car I've heard that you must be careful, at least here in Europe, because they put Ethanol on it and very old cars don't like it.
Firstly, most American cars were reliable. By the time WW2 was over, most car makers here stopped advertising reliability, because it was just assumed. That, and making trucks and tanks for the war effort probably increased their quality control. Certain cars might have rusted sooner, but today, most old cars are generally considered much more reliable than anything modern. But I suppose that comes down to there being less things to break = less probability of failure.

Second, you still need oil changes often. I don't care what car it is, if it has an internal combustion engine, the oil WILL get contaminated. That's perfectly normal. This modern idea that new cars don't need oil changes very often is a lie perpetuated by governing bodies like the EPA (excuse me while I put on my tinfoil hat). They make laws that say manufacturers are not allowed to require oil changes very often (and transmission oil changes are not allowed at all), because they think oil changes pollute the environment (they don't - used oil is a commodity that gets bought and sold and either used for fuel or recycled into new oil [yes! that's a thing that happens now!]). And if the manufacturer does not comply, they get fined. So all the car makers smile and tell you that you only need an oil change every 15,000 miles (24,000km), and when your engine takes a shit, they wonder why.

Fact is, oil gets dirty. Could be the best synthetic oil in the world. It's dirty at 3000 miles, I promise you this.

Third, ethanol is completely harmless. The myth that it dissolves parts of the fuel system comes from the 1970s, when during the fuel crisis, a new alternative alcohol based fuel was introduced - M85. It was methanol, which is a very harsh solvent, much harsher than ethanol or gasoline (which is itself a very harsh solvent). People today remember the ...85 alcohol fuel and instantly equate it with E85 (ethanol) and the ~10% ethanol they put in ordinary gas. In fact, that 10% is actually helpful as it will capture a small amount of water, if it gets in the gas (ever wonder what's in a bottle of Heet fuel additive?) Also, it lowers the detonation temperature of the gasoline, which increases its octane number, and is actually really helpful for carbureted engines, especially ones with higher compression ratios.

Ethanol isn't even that harsh, not even compared to gasoline. Even so, let's assume for a moment that ethanol might harm a pre-1990s gasket or hose somewhere in an old car's fuel system. That part is at LEAST 30 years old already, you should be changing it anyway. Rubber hoses and gaskets are considered perishable.

The only other thing is that an old carbureted car might not be adjusted to run well on 10% ethanol fuel. Maybe. If it hasn't been adjusted since before the 1990s, I guess. Or whenever ethanol blended fuel was standardized in your area. That's nothing a screwdriver can't fix.


--------------------------


Long post, sorry. Hope I've been helpful :)

I've never had issues with 10% ethanol gas in my CARS, even carbureated ones. Now my lawn tractor with it's Briggs 18hp I/C twin on the other hand it reeks havoc.

Now that I read this tread, I think the miata with it's 1.8 liter 150hp 4 cylinder is due for an oil change......

In Europe some producers are also saying that you don't need to change the oil, but it's about the oild from automatic geraboxes. Lifetime oil they say. Some say you still need to change it, other no. In Romania it's good to change oil because you know, it's Romania and you can't be sure of the qualty of products...
True, cars in the day where simpler. I want an classical preselector gerabox because it deosen't requiers vacumm or selenoids like other types of preselectors. I don't know if I'm able to start rolling a classical manual, but a classical preselector I think I can do very easy. I don't mind cars having some saftey features, but don't transform it into an space ship.
I think the import cars had also one other advantage: the adrees the public who wanted a small cheaper cars. Big powerful cars are good, but living in New York City, Boston or California will get you in nasty traffic; plus some people didn't had money for bigger cars. And American manufacturers quited for a time making small cars.

1976 "Cadillac". My 1st and only "Cadillac" ride. And 1st and only time that I've seen for real an 8 track cassette player working. And the only car that I feel as confortable as in a train... Europeanen cars are too small. In big cities and for short rides are nice, but for long rides if there are full it's nasty. And I'm not a tall guy. Darn, even in streetcars (trams in British English), trolleybuses and urban buses I have more space for my feet.

A lot of American cars 1980s and older were big and comfortable like caddies....all but the cheapest buyers tended to expect a big floaty car that they could comfortably take 5 hour drive for a weekend trip in.

You do get used to having a car with oomph. Part of the reason I don't like European cars (besides the generally drab styling of post WWII stuff) is most are small and under powered, and the ones that do have power are usually small too. Driving can be scary if you don't have power....try merging onto the highway in front of a semi with bad brakes in a gutless car that can't make highway speed in the distance an on ramp gives you to do so.... Small cars especially vintage ones tend to offer very little protection to occupants. .https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kRJdHkvIRYw
Add to that a lot of power and the illusion that a small light car is more nimble and drivers tend to do crazy things that get them in accidents.
Every centimeter of car between your seat and the car that hits you is that much more a buffer separating you from harm...
The full size American cars really did need the big engines to not be gigantic sluggs... putting the sedan and wagon engines in the smaller lighter 2 door cars is where one could argue the engines were excessive.

Some Europeanen cars are not underpowered. But big, only a few.
I can't remember how big is G.A.Z. M21 Volga on the inside (ride one on twice ocasions - same car). It's not very big, but not too small either. But for here is considered a big car. It wasn't a good acceleration car, but the engine had a good torque. Fuel consumption was not low.
But a 4, maybe 5 litre engine was too small in the late '60's?

What I hate the fact that they don't make cars at that is easy to make some custom stuff, for eg the brake pedal on the right (manual gearbox), light dip on the floor and so on.
Some cars today don't have any longer a spare tire.

A lot of American cars 1980s and older were big and comfortable like caddies....all but the cheapest buyers tended to expect a big floaty car that they could comfortably take 5 hour drive for a weekend trip in.
That's another reason why Americans typically like large cars: comfort for hours. In most of Europe, the farthest place you'd want to drive is maybe an hour away. In America, everything is much more spread out. Many people routinely commute to work 1 hour, and an hour back. A weekend trip might be 6 hours or more, often with the family packed into the car. Being trapped in a little shitbox for 6 hours is no fun.

Love the crash test video. It's important to remember that old cars like that Cadillac are not very good by today's crash test standards, but that little Datsun it was up against was far, far worse by today's standards. It probably weighed about half the Caddy. Those little old cars that everyone praises for their fuel economy were deathtraps. There's a good reason that the smallest modern Honda still weighs about 4000lbs.
I think the import cars had also one other advantage: the adrees the public who wanted a small cheaper cars. Big powerful cars are good, but living in New York City, Boston or California will get you in nasty traffic; plus some people didn't had money for bigger cars. And American manufacturers quited for a time making small cars.
Yes, definitely. There will always be people that prefer a small car. Probably in 1970's America, that was an underserved market.

[QUOTE=MadMan;3216744]Don't worry. Drive the car for a month or so, and you'll get so buff that nobody will want to pick a fight with you. :P

In the time I owned my International pickup I mostly drove it just 2-3 times a week; now, I'm a bean-pole. After a few months I noticed: for the first and only time in my life, I actually had muscles in my arms! My wife was quite impressed. They went away pretty quickly after I sold the truck. The other vehicles I have with manual steering really don't take that much muscle, even at low speeds.

Ethanol: I've had issues with older rubber fuel hose and with some rubber components in a 90's-era Holley 4 barrel. Easy enough to remedy. Certainly if you didn't drive the car much and the gas had to sit for months, you're asking for trouble. I drive mine too much for that to be a problem. We can get ethanol-free gas fairly easily around home, but it's expensive. I tried a tank in my old Ford and saw no difference at all: same power, same mileage, it started no better or worse. Invaluable for a lawn mower, though.

Thank you for patiance with me. I sometimes very curios and insist on a question.
Doese worm and snail steering system helps a driver? In Romanian worm and snail is called "direcţie cu melc" ("steering with snail").

TC3007- Oh, no. Don't worry about it. Trust me, I think you've likely come to the Right Place to ask questions about American cars. While I don't think anyone here buys or sells cars for a living, I also am pretty sure we have quite a few "Petrolheads" in our midst who are only too happy to share our experiences w/you..

Some Europeanen cars are not underpowered. But big, only a few.
I can't remember how big is G.A.Z. M21 Volga on the inside (ride one on twice ocasions - same car). It's not very big, but not too small either. But for here is considered a big car. It wasn't a good acceleration car, but the engine had a good torque. Fuel consumption was not low.
But a 4, maybe 5 litre engine was too small in the late '60's?

What I hate the fact that they don't make cars at that is easy to make some custom stuff, for eg the brake pedal on the right (manual gearbox), light dip on the floor and so on.
Some cars today don't have any longer a spare tire.

Liters displacement really came in around the time fuel injection took over in the 80s.

Most full size American cars of the 60s were underpowered if displacement was under 250CID most of the inline 6 ecconomy engines I've heard of were in the 250s to low 300s...(granted you probably weren't going to be able to pass people, and on a wagon or truck or van loaded it might become underpowered). I've heard that many of the inline slant 6 engines were longer lived than most of the V8s available. Some of the midsize and compacts could easily get away with offering even smaller engines.

This might sound a bit obnoxious but the Studebaker Lark Compact while available with small 6 cylinder engines could also fit and be ordered with rather large V8s...I hear it was a somewhat popular drag racing setup back in the day...heck there is even someone in my area that built one up.and drives it in the summer.

300 cubic inches... that's almost 5 liters (5,000 cubic centimeters). It was underpowered?

TC3007- Oh, no. Don't worry about it. Trust me, I think you've likely come to the Right Place to ask questions about American cars. While I don't think anyone here buys or sells cars for a living, I also am pretty sure we have quite a few "Petrolheads" in our midst who are only too happy to share our experiences w/you..

My passion are now the British cars, but an old Cady woulnd't be bad.
I'm glad that I got that 1921 auto book.

Today's "Mercedes" are just a pice of ugliness. No style, just made for people who just want to impress with the name of the brand.
Very old models at least if they whreren't in the had the looks, they had the reability of the brand.
The W123 (a.k.a "Cobra" in Romania) had a certain look (not very beatiful, bot not ugly), but for sure it was good car worth of the brand's name.
In Bucharest there are 2 x 380SL. Both automatic transimision. In terms of look... not only does they do have the appeal, but the overpass any of today's model.
I'm not such a big fan of the brand, but the very old models from them for sure where good. And W123 was a very wade range of cars. Today's cars don't seem so versatile in terms of options.

U.S.A. cars had one problem I think: to big engines. I agree that outside densly populated areas, in U.S.A. (or Canada or even Mexico) you can't go with small engine cars like in Europe. So a 3-4 liters (maybe 5 if you want a really big car or a pick-up truck) is needed, but when you put as a standard a 5-6 liters engine is arelady too much in the late '60's.
But do you have any ideea, what where the most relaible U.S.A brands up to the '50's?
You needed oil change only because you migh had leaks or also because the qualty of the oil wasn't so good back then - plain mineral oil, no aditives.
If you want to run a classic car I've heard that you must be careful, at least here in Europe, because they put Ethanol on it and very old cars don't like it.

Here is something to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission

And let's not forget about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTZeP5f20PA

http://hudsonterraplane.com/tech/1935/1935-38ElectricHandTechInfo.pdf

US cars had big engines, because they were driven on Interstate and rural highways, longer distances, and were so large and heavy. And speed limits then were anywhere from 60-75 MPH. Remember, from Johnson City, Tennessee to Memphis, Tennessee is bigger than Romania. It's in excess of 600 miles East to West.

Even shorter than Bucharest - Tessaloniki (Greece), which is under 500 miles. Gush, for such long distance I would ride only a big car or the train.

That's what people-And foreigners, often-Never seem to realize- or understand-America is a BIG damn place. Tennessee, my state, if you folded it over at the northeastern tip, Memphis would be somewhere out in the Atlantic ocean.. And Tennessee really isn't all THAT big..I left home one morning to see a gal graduate from RN-nursing school-it was about 6.30 in the morning, & we drove to Memphis... We got there about 2.30-3PM...10, 11 hours, & we never left Tennessee !

Back when I was honestly employed (no remarks!) our Korean colleagues wanted to do a signal survey of the new HDTV broadcasts in cities across the US. They announced they were planning to spend a week or less. I couldn't get them to understand the impracticality until I sent them a map of the continental US with a map of South Korea to the same scale superimposed. The project quickly condensed to a couple of cities.

I suggest that any one contemplating a cross-US trip make such a map with their own country superimposed to scale over the US map to let the full import sink in.

Similarly, one of our Korean colleagues stationed in Illinois decided to vacation by driving his family across country in a rented motor home - they got as far as Utah, turned in the RV and flew back.

This is not meant to discourage anyone, just to encourage planning realistically.

Certainly if you didn't drive the car much and the gas had to sit for months, you're asking for trouble.
I mean, you're asking for trouble, anyway, if you do that. Interesting, though. Still, I'm certain that any new parts are ethanol friendly by now.
I've heard that many of the inline slant 6 engines were longer lived than most of the V8s available.
Well in the 60s, most of the straight six's you had were basically pre-WW2 designs with minor updates. They were built like brick shithouses. People like to say the old Chevy stovetop was mechanically unable to over-rev.

Then Chrysler came out with the slant six, which was a thoroughly modern engine. Nascar decided to have a 6 cylinder economy car race. Ford and Chevy just raced some off-the-rack 6 cylinders, which were those ancient designs. Chrysler actually had their racing department work on the slant six for the race. 7 Dodges/Plymouths were in the race. They beat the pants off of Chevy and Ford, taking the first 7 places by a long shot. The race was so boring, they decided to never do it again.

Also, a friend of mine who used to buy and sell a lot of cars back in the day told me a story once about a Chrysler slant six. He said the car was going to the junk yard, so he decided to blow the engine just for fun. He said it took a good 10 minutes of over-revving it to do it in. That's insane!
300 cubic inches... that's almost 5 liters (5,000 cubic centimeters). It was underpowered?
Well consider that most of those straight six motors were very old design, and also because they were the 'cheap' engine option, they usually only had a small single barrel carburetor. I'm sure you could get better performance out of a motor like that now, either with a better carb or fuel injection.

There is a book I would HIGHLY recommend to anyone who is even marginally interested in cars in reading-"Truck", by a chap named John Jerome. It is the story of the trials & tribulations of a guy who buys & semi-restores a 1949 Dodge half ton pickup. He basically just gets it to use on his farm in New Hampshire, not for making a show truck out of. It was written in the early Seventies, it has some "New Age"post hippie-era jibberish, but still is a pretty good read. Jerome is/was a native Texan, also was an editor for one of the national car magazines, so he speaks w/quite a bit of authority. A small book, it doesn't take long to read, & its one of those books that kinda makes you feel good after you read it. I'm sure its LONG outta print, but it might be available at some online source, like EVERYTHING else is...

But why in the early '60's they didn't designed a engine that would be a little more modern and offer a liitle more power at let's say 50 cubic inches less then the models of engines that where still existing.
On a YouTube video some one noticed that the Americans where among the 1st to put fuel injection on cars (Germans had that too), but other went ahead of the Americans.
For long distance I like the trains. I would like to be direct trains from Bucharest to Paris and Berlin (from Paris I can go to London) with sleeping cars and individual shower room (there are this kind of sleeping cars), but no chance... well, there are direct trains from Viena to Berlin (you can go with train from Bucharest to Viena), but to Paris no. Probably I will have to step on my princeples and get into a plane.
Getting back to automobiles, well, some of them still have theyr fans outside U.S.A. or the Americas. Same as British cars, through all there in Europe there is mania with German cars (except with some countries), some Italian cars and maybe some French cars. There where when "F.I.A.T." (Italy) licesend car production to U.S.S.R., Poland, Austria, Spain...

But why in the early '60's they didn't designed a engine that would be a little more modern and offer a liitle more power at let's say 50 cubic inches less then the models of engines that where still existing.
On a YouTube video some one noticed that the Americans where among the 1st to put fuel injection on cars (Germans had that too), but other went ahead of the Americans.
For long distance I like the trains. I would like to be direct trains from Bucharest to Paris and Berlin (from Paris I can go to London) with sleeping cars and individual shower room (there are this kind of sleeping cars), but no chance... well, there are direct trains from Viena to Berlin (you can go with train from Bucharest to Viena), but to Paris no. Probably I will have to step on my princeples and get into a plane.
Getting back to automobiles, well, some of them still have theyr fans outside U.S.A. or the Americas. Same as British cars, through all there in Europe there is mania with German cars (except with some countries), some Italian cars and maybe some French cars. There where when "F.I.A.T." (Italy) licesend car production to U.S.S.R., Poland, Austria, Spain...

Fuel injection in the 50s and 60's was expensive, complicated and unreliable...the only ones with the patience and money to want to maintain it were drag racers and others involved in motor sports....of the few production cars optioned with it back then many were converted to carburetors as soon as the injection failed.

As mentioned above Chrysler did bother to make a more modern engine fairly early.... Ignoring the Chevy corvair(and GM senior compacts), Studebaker Lark, Nash 600 and Metropolitan, and Ford Falcon and Crosley brand cars (which in the 50s went under just like American Bantam did a decade earlier) American auto makers were not concerned with making smalll efficient cars till the 70s. The concerns were price (the main reason Pre-WWII engines were made for so long), features and comfort.

But the modern engines where a little bit more economic?
I've heard that the focus mainly on price was something that affected in a bad way the American industry.

I've seen that caddy vs. datsun crash test before... the view from inside the datsun where the caddy's front end dives is really striking. Whenever traffic comes to a stop on the DC beltway I'm looking behind me for a car nose diving... I've seen it a few times, thankfully I haven't been clobbered.

-J

But the modern engines where a little bit more economic?
I've heard that the focus mainly on price was something that affected in a bad way the American industry.
Modern engines cost much more. When you wanted power you just
made them bigger & poured more gas in the old days!
Keep in mind Americans loved straight line preformance. We didnt care
about going fast around corners. Most cars were built so you could go
fast WITHOUT much feel of the road. A "cloud like ride" or "sitting on your
sofa".
Motors were for the most part very reliable. The average new car buyer
kept it 4 yrs, apx 80K miles. The new owners often ran them up to
150-200 K miles. By then the car was eaten by rust but the drive line
was still good. New car reliability is more to do with better small parts IMHO.
We used to constantly change hoses, belts, plugs, starters, etc. It never
ended BUT was easy to do & cheap. Most the time you could get home
then deal with it......

73 Zeno:smoke:
LFOD !

To be onest, I like cars that can be easily repaired/fixed. Too much electronics aren't good. After all it's car, not a space ship.

@ compu85 : what crash?

There's also a video where a 1959-60 model 4 door Chevy gets smacked in the front by a more modern car. It made me SICK not only because the crash test dummies got a real workout-bouncing around all over the car, but because the Shivverlay looked to initially be in really good shape... Then when the impact happened, you saw all the RUST comin' out from everywhere.. The body, IIRC, deformed pretty badly too, not necessarily on account of the rust. We've all heard those older cars were built tougher & could "Take It".. Well the Chevy pretty much folded up like a Cheap Suit.. But, in '57, GM scrapped their decades old double channel frame design, that had 2 side members going from the front of the car to the tail end, in favor of a centrally mounted frame that provided little or no protection in collision, its basic duty was to allow designers to lower the overall height of the car...Some GM divisions didn't want to use the design, since it was felt it wasn't safe, & indeed in 1965 GM went back to on their "Big" cars to the double channel frame design that they'd used before..

But why in the early '60's they didn't designed a engine that would be a little more modern and offer a liitle more power at let's say 50 cubic inches less then the models of engines that where still existing.
Actually, the early 60s were a time when engines were very powerful and (reasonably) efficient. Higher compression ratios were common, and new(ish) technologies were being employed. Like hydraulic valve lifters, hemispherical combustion chamber (Hemi!), overhead valves, small blocks (making big displacement motors physically smaller), etc. But then catalytic converters became mandatory and kind of ruined the power (and efficiency) numbers of engines in the 60s.
But the modern engines where a little bit more economic?
I've heard that the focus mainly on price was something that affected in a bad way the American industry.
Well focus on the bottom line sometimes does make problems. But normally competition drives companies to find new ways to make things simpler, and therefore cheaper.

As for efficiency, gas was cheap back in the day. Even if it wasn't quite as cheap as you might imagine, people didn't care, they just kept filling up. The economy must have been better back then. To be fair, gas is still pretty cheap in America compared to... literally most other countries in the world. It's probably about $3.00 per gallon (~4L) where I'm at, right now. And people complain about the price. But then you go to Europe and it's probably two or three times that. So fuel economy really was not a pressing issue. Hell, it still isn't, really, but people here like to imagine that it is.
There's also a video where a 1959-60 model 4 door Chevy gets smacked in the front by a more modern car. It made me SICK not only because the crash test dummies got a real workout-bouncing around all over the car, but because the Shivverlay looked to initially be in really good shape... Then when the impact happened, you saw all the RUST comin' out from everywhere..
I've seen that video. I think the obvious frame rust played a major part in that, but also, most cars back then were not as tank-like as people see in their rose-tinted hindsight goggles. Those cars were big on the outside, but sort of hollow on the inside. Modern cars are much more densely packed.

1st emission regulation where introduced in California in 1966.
Yes, gas was cheap back then and probably no one thought that they shoul reduce cosumption of fuel.
There where day when in Romania with a minimal wage you could but around 400-480 U.S. gallons of fuel! But cars where very expensive then. Dern, even with most streets in not very good shape you could go from one end of Bucharest to the other in no more then 30-40 minutes. And since there wheren't so many cars, fuel economy was grater. In the early '70's gas was becoming more costly, but it wasn't so expensive up untill 1977-1979. Most cars around here could do 16-24 m.p.g. back in the day. And we had (no very big) busses with V8 gas engines (and trucks too!).
In Romania price for gas is around 3.80-4 U.S. Dollars per U.S. gallon. In U.S. there are areas where I heard there is even around 4.50 U.S.D. per U.S. gallon, but you know, in U.S.A. 800-1000 dollars is a small wage, here the same sallary is big.

Actually, the early 60s were a time when engines were very powerful and (reasonably) efficient. Higher compression ratios were common, and new(ish) technologies were being employed. Like hydraulic valve lifters, hemispherical combustion chamber (Hemi!), overhead valves, small blocks (making big displacement motors physically smaller), etc. But then catalytic converters became mandatory and kind of ruined the power (and efficiency) numbers of engines in the 60s.

Well focus on the bottom line sometimes does make problems. But normally competition drives companies to find new ways to make things simpler, and therefore cheaper.

As for efficiency, gas was cheap back in the day. Even if it wasn't quite as cheap as you might imagine, people didn't care, they just kept filling up. The economy must have been better back then. To be fair, gas is still pretty cheap in America compared to... literally most other countries in the world. It's probably about $3.00 per gallon (~4L) where I'm at, right now. And people complain about the price. But then you go to Europe and it's probably two or three times that. So fuel economy really was not a pressing issue. Hell, it still isn't, really, but people here like to imagine that it is.

I've seen that video. I think the obvious frame rust played a major part in that, but also, most cars back then were not as tank-like as people see in their rose-tinted hindsight goggles. Those cars were big on the outside, but sort of hollow on the inside. Modern cars are much more densely packed.

Your in Ill where thay have that dopey law that prevents sale of gas not refined in Ill driving up the price...Here regular was $2.33 last I checked.

Your in Ill where thay have that dopey law that prevents sale of gas not refined in Ill driving up the price...Here regular was $2.33 last I checked.

Yea , he's getting hosed , here in eastern Ma. where the gas is considered pricey compared to the national average we are just a bit below $2.50 .

In Bucharest, before we got to much cars (there are too many for the infrastructure... in the city there it should be no more then half a milion motor vehicles, but they are arleady one million) you could find old small gas stations that are gone now. The gas probably wasn't of the best qualty, but old cars had the advantage of not beeing squeamish on low qualty fuel.
Romanian greasing oil was bad... if you did 4,000 miles with it was good.
But why in U.S.A. automatic gearboxes gained so much power? In Europe they still aren't common... more expensive and there is still the myth that a car with automatic transmisions swallows up more fuel (probably the ones with hydraulic transmision are do, but in today's the difference of compsumtion isn't so big). And there are some idiotic sayings about automatic gearboxes (even about the ones that offer manual control too). The bad thing is that in Romania I don't know if some one can make a good reapair at automatic gearboxes... not even old style ones, let alone modern ones. I wonder how they would deal with a preselector gerabox (classic command, not electropneumatic command).

But why in U.S.A. automatic gearboxes gained so much power? In Europe they still aren't common... more expensive and there is still the myth that a car with automatic transmisions swallows up more fuel (probably the ones with hydraulic transmision are do, but in today's the difference of compsumtion isn't so big).
Even people here say the same things and have the same preconceptions about automatic gearboxes. The thing is, we Americans really do enjoy our creature comforts. If we spend a little more on gas and don't have to be bothered with shifting, most of us will do it. It also goes back to America being a BIG ol' country, and lots of us are in our cars for long periods of time. So anything that'll make that easier for us, we'll do.

I'm sure I've said this before, but all those preconceived notions about automatics are from a long time ago. Just in the same way that people today will tell you not to put a car battery on a cold concrete floor - something that you shouldn't have done with metal-cased batteries from 100 years ago - it's an old wive's tale now. Actually most automatics - even hydraulic ones - generally get almost the same gas mileage as a manual in the same car. And an automatic will usually not require service before the same car with a manual needs a clutch.

Also, most of the early automatics in American cars were pretty reliable. Think Powerglide (they still make them today for drag racers!), Hydramatic, Torqueflite, and Ford's C6. The last three were being put in new cars and trucks from the 60s ALL the way up until the 2000s. So reliability was pretty much always there for us, that kind of eliminates one of the major reasons someone would pick a manual instead.

But what was the ideea with the batteries?
I thought in U.S.A. those preconceptions where gone since automatic becamed dominant in the '60's. It's true that an automatic gearbox is more complicated then a manual one (or even an pure mechanical preselector) so the fear of the costs is justified.
Buses used for public transportation by S.T.B. (former R.A.T.B.) - the service transport owned by the Municipality are all automatic gearboxed. Last manual gerabox buses from Bucharest went out of service in 2007-2008... and unfourtnley 99,9% went scraped in stad of servin other cities :(
Oh, another myth is that vehicles with automatic gearboxes are slow... it was true for the old ones. But the "D.A.F." SB220 * buses introduced in 1994 (all pull over, none of those beauties is in a good shape :( ) where pretty faster and they had automatic gearboxes. And that was a quarter of century ago. The bus drivers where doing races on Kiseleff Road (Avenue) in the night when went to the garage. Oh, and in pure conditions those gearboxes lasted sometimes even a milion kilometers!!!
In U.S.A. you can get driving licence for automatic gearbox and drive what you like. In Romania (and not only) if you're getting a lincence for automatic gearboxes you're stick to automatic, you don't have the legal right to drive manual gearboxes. Also in Romania there is no option for getting driving licence for only automatic gerabox if you want to drive a truck (I don't about buses).

* in fact "D.A.F." made only the chassie, the axle and the steering. The engines where made by "M.A.N." (Germany), the gearbox by "Voith" (Germany), the body was made in Spain or Greece and the seats in... Romania.

But what was the ideea with the batteries?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDR43E5Uxw4
I thought in U.S.A. those preconceptions where gone since automatic becamed dominant in the '60's.[/QUOTE]
lol people still say all those things, but go ahead and drive automatics, anyway. Of course, there are still a few people who will only drive a manual.
Oh, another myth is that vehicles with automatic gearboxes are slow... it was true for the old ones. But the "D.A.F." SB220 * buses introduced in 1994 (all pull over, none of those beauties is in a good shape :( ) where pretty faster and they had automatic gearboxes. And that was a quarter of century ago. The bus drivers where doing races on Kiseleff Road (Avenue) in the night when went to the garage. Oh, and in pure conditions those gearboxes lasted sometimes even a milion kilometers!!!
That's cool! Modern automatics - like, from the 60s onward - didn't have much power loss. Obviously, some would be better than others. Most of that comes down to how much slip there is in the torque converter. Early converters did not have the middle piece... the stator, I think. Without it, there is a lot of slip, and therefore power loss. Now, of course, we have lock-up converters, which depending on when they are commanded to lock up, give direct connection from the engine to the wheels, so no slip. I wonder what type of gearbox those buses had. I wonder if the Voith gerabox is the European equivalent to the Allison? Hell, there might be some Allison gearboxes over there.
In U.S.A. you can get driving licence for automatic gearbox and drive what you like. In Romania (and not only) if you're getting a lincence for automatic gearboxes you're stick to automatic, you don't have the legal right to drive manual gearboxes. Also in Romania there is no option for getting driving licence for only automatic gerabox if you want to drive a truck (I don't about buses).
I believe there are 1 or 2 states that require a different license to drive manual.

Yes, the stator. My British dream cars don't have a stator, because in the '30-'50's :(
"Voith" I think they are good. At least they lasted on the buses. "ZF" also makes automatic gearboxes. Oh, the Romanian "Rocar" with "de Simon" type body also used "Voith" gearboxes.
On the interior on the "D.A.F." buses was and advert for "Voith" on which was among other image of a truck. I don't think in Romanian back in those days where trucks with automatic geraboxes, so I was in state of wondering.

To be onest, I like cars that can be easily repaired/fixed. Too much electronics aren't good. After all it's car, not a space ship.

@ compu85 : what crash?

This one that was linked above:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kRJdHkvIRYw

-J

Hmmmmmpf... Looked like the Caddy coulda been driven home.. Don't think it even spiderwebbed the windshield... The little Japanese car got pretty well "Woofed", though... Guy in the Caddy mighta had to take a handful or so of Advils or Ibuprofens, but not much worse than that. Guy in the Japanese car might have had a broken knee, leg, ankle, but mighta also got outta it unscathed.. Bottom line-You're likely STILL safer in a Big-Azz Tankus Americanus, at least a newer version, but the little pregnant rollerskate mini-cars are MUCH better than they were, even not so long ago..

That Japanese car done quite good on the impact. I've seen newer cars doing worser then that.
But do you know any one one who ownes a pre 1956 automobile?
I looked on that 1921 automobile book... thought greasing at 500 miles is stressing (one of my British dream cars do require greasing at 500 miles)... well, some cars did need greasing and oiling at daily/at 100 miles back then! Shees, owning an automobile was quite a pain.
It's true that Henry Ford couldn't drive cars with crash gearboxes?

On the old Buick valve-in-head (overhead valve) engines, the valve gear was out in the open. You actually had to manually oil all the rocker arms with an oil can... probably every day. Of course that was in the 1920s I think.

As for British cars, not to stereotype, but it does rain a lot there. They probably recommended greasing often to keep all the rainwater out of the joints. My guess, anyway.

On the old Buick valve-in-head (overhead valve) engines, the valve gear was out in the open. You actually had to manually oil all the rocker arms with an oil can... probably every day. Of course that was in the 1920s I think.

As for British cars, not to stereotype, but it does rain a lot there. They probably recommended greasing often to keep all the rainwater out of the joints. My guess, anyway.

The later Buick Fireball OHV engines were fully self-oiling. Coldwarmotors youtube channel has a fairly entertaining Straight-8 showdown series where they take a 1950 Buick and 1951? Packard both decades-old junkyard cars with stuck Straight-8s and get both going and yard race them on basically $0 budget and you get to see a good bit of the inner-workings of both.

To add to your point of the greasing recommendation being possibly excessive...If the documentation Telecolor is reading is from several decades ago (as I think it is) then it likely is from a time period when grease/lubrication products were primative and MUCH LESS effective/long lived then current products.

Or because the greasing points wheren't sealed. Take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBO_ee96tY0&t=186s

All of the above, I think.

What you can sometimes find for sale: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Daimler-1939-DB18-RHD-rolling-chassis-/311666331293

LOL yeah I know

hub caps have been removed
engine flywheel/torque converter
and auto transmission available
for extra cost of $1800

Typical morons. Think they have a gold mine.

Sheesh, I din't payed atention. I thought the engine was included.
True that stuff is rare, but with 8,000 bucks I think you can buy an unrestored car.

But does any one haves photos with old hand singnals? Like you see here from 7:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPLgZqP0Hts
When do automobiles in U.S.A. started to had turn signals and how did they looked?

Atleast as far back as the 30s turn signals were available on some cars as an option, and on any car as aftermarket modifications. I think they remained an option until the early 50s then became mandatory on new cars...IIRC in some places if you own a car that never had factory turn signals you don't have to add them.

Wow I didn't even know it, but the hand signals have changed a bit from back in the day. We are still taught hand signals in driver's education, but they are only left turn, right turn, and stopping. Presumably if your lights are out, you should use hand signals.

As for the year they became mandatory, I'm not getting a clear reading. It looks like 1955, but I think it might have been different for each state.

I can't seem to find any photos of old aftermarket turn signals, though I'm sure many still exist. I recall when I was young, my dad was fixing a 1930's Packard, and it had an aftermarket signal switch on it. It was just a turn signal stalk that you clamped to the steering column, and presumably some lights to mount on the outside of the car.

In U.S.A. the autombiles didn't had trafficators?
I was wondering if you could install heating on cars that don't. I found that you could. Now here's something intresting: http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/forum/phpbb/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21287&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=769d8ba97d548e02c0c6e48c7f860809

Do you know this chanel? :rolleyes: https://www.youtube.com/user/USAutoIndustry/videos
Here is another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCEmhR_QTgs

I didn't know of it, but I subscribed now - thanks

Atleast as far back as the 30s turn signals were available on some cars as an option, and on any car as aftermarket modifications. I think they remained an option until the early 50s then became mandatory on new cars...IIRC in some places if you own a car that never had factory turn signals you don't have to add them.

Back when they weren't all that old I had two 1951 cars , a Chevy and a Plymouth . Neither car was built with factory installed turn signals and the Chevy already had the aftermarket retrofit signals installed before I bought it but the Plymouth didn't . I ended up tracking down one of the turn signal kits for the Plymouth , it was a unit that clamped onto the steering column and required rewiring the brake lights into combination brakelight / turnsignals , the kit had new wires that ran to each bulb in the trunk and to the front running lights (which needed their sockets changed from the single to dual filament bulbs for the turn signals) .

Fun fact , both cars were 6 volt electrical systems with tube radios . I of course had the radios working perfectly and had taken an FM converter , used a small 6 V motorcycle battery in series with the car's 6 V to supply the converter with the 12 V it needed , and headbanging metal was happily blasted to the general disgust of most of my fellow commuters :rockon:

Back when they weren't all that old I had two 1951 cars , a Chevy and a Plymouth . Neither car was built with factory installed turn signals and the Chevy already had the aftermarket retrofit signals installed before I bought it but the Plymouth didn't . I ended up tracking down one of the turn signal kits for the Plymouth , it was a unit that clamped onto the steering column and required rewiring the brake lights into combination brakelight / turnsignals , the kit had new wires that ran to each bulb in the trunk and to the front running lights (which needed their sockets changed from the single to dual filament bulbs for the turn signals) .

Fun fact , both cars were 6 volt electrical systems with tube radios . I of course had the radios working perfectly and had taken an FM converter , used a small 6 V motorcycle battery in series with the car's 6 V to supply the converter with the 12 V it needed , and headbanging metal was happily blasted to the general disgust of most of my fellow commuters
I've seen a couple cars with those kits.

Lol.:thmbsp: Planning to eventually have a 1940's GM (or Nash) fastback in my future about a year ago when a fellow member brought a bunch of converters to a meet I bought 1 each of FM, SW, Police/aviation/fire converters.
Depending on how I feel I may do that and or rewire the original radio...A year or so back I took a late 40's mono Magnavox home console and upgraded it to stereo. The process involved adding sections to the band/function switch of the AM/SW/preamp chassis, reworking the preamp for stereo, adding an FM MPX chassis (to work with the factory FM tuner), swapping the 60's VM someone cobbled in with a Magnavox badged Colarro Conquest, and a installing a second matching PPP 6V6 amp chassis to it (the results were pretty awesome :rockon:)...Part of me, if I ended up with a messed up enough car radio, would like to do something akin to the what I did to the Magnavox and custom build an AM/FM stereo tube car radio with powerful tube-based amp unit based on a car radio chassis that is beyond hope for resto...I'd also really like to get one of those RCA 45RPM car changers.

:thmbsp: I will be looking forward to your 40s car , I 100% agree that there was an elegance about 40s and 50s cars that has yet to be recaptured .

I wish me for a '30's-'40's car, but I want a British one.
So in the early '50's you still had to do hand signlas when driving? :para:

I wish me for a '30's-'40's car, but I want a British one.
So in the early '50's you still had to do hand signlas when driving? :para:

If your car didn't have signals (and other cars and or police were present) yes....even if you did have signals you had to understand them when other drivers used them... nowadays there is probably a rather large portion of the driving population that wouldn't know hand signals if they saw them...

In Europe I think allsmot all cars had some kind of turning signal by the early '50's.

Steering column mounted turn signal units were still showing up on heavy trucks fairly recently though I'm not sure how compatible they are for use on a car. Signal Stat is a popular brand; a quick search shows they're still available, and pretty cheap.

Do you have any image with steering column mounted turn signal units?

Like this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=vintage+turn+signal+switch&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-he210_nlAhUFOH0KHZB8AN8Q_AUoAnoECA4QAg&biw=768&bih=922#imgrc=Yc7vSKgxgRqmrM

jr

Cars still use a verion of that.

On the other hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rib0jbmeaX0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClaNhx71XB8

Something intresting: http://automobilia-romania.blogspot.com/2012/12/taximetru-exact.html
https://www.okazii.ro/ceas-taxi-vechi-halda-a127129425
https://www.okazii.ro/poltax-aparat-taxi-vechi-a113924901
What does it means "on radio call?": http://www.taximetre.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/checker-cab.jpg

What does it means "on radio call?": http://www.taximetre.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/checker-cab.jpg

Before the days of cell phones - cab companies used special licensed radio frequencies to communicate between the dispatcher and the taxis. If you were in a cab and the radio was on, you would hear the dispatcher reading a list of customer addresses. The driver would then reply if he was close and wanted to take the fare.

Edit: I believe that when the driver accepted a radio-dispatched fare, he would turn on the lighted "on radio call" sign so that people on the street would know he was not available, rather than rudely igoring them. Maybe someone remembers this for sure? I seem to recall that the sign was simpler in some places - "TAXI" light on if available, off if not available.

Maybe someone remembers this for sure? I seem to recall that the sign was simpler in some places - "TAXI" light on if available, off if not available.
Pretty much. There were a couple different versions, for sure.

In Romania (at least in Bucharest) we don't have a sytsem like that. The taxi haves just 2 lights except for the one that iluminates the Taxi sign: green and red. Red is when the "clock" is starting to register, otherwise even the taxi is picking up a command (dispacer calling or mobile phone app) there is no way to indiciate that he is picking up a command and that's annoing. But you know, Romania...

Did somebody watched this show? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23oaLAEUpo
It was brodacasted in Romania around 1996, but I don't think I ever watched an episode (or more then an episode).
Those "Checkers" taxies... I thought they where from the '60's and still in use in the '90's-'000's. In fact they where newer, but had that retro look.
In U.S.A. can you use as a taxi old cars?

Here are some old taxi "clocks": http://www.fama.hu/index.php?mn=28&otip=1&prnt=28&lang=en&gkr=Museum
The ones with Ft where used in Hungary. Ft is coming from the Hungrian Forint (national currency of Hungary).

The good thing about changing oil at lower intervals at old cars is that you are sure that you don't get to many residues in it. Or if it is of bad qualty, it won't damage the engine. I don't trust what producers are saying.
It U.S.A. did you ever manufactured automobiles that could use all the fuel from the tank, including wat was on the bottom. Excluding the cars that had fule supply with the help of gravity ("Ford" Model T, "Ford" A... in Europe 'Traban't used this sytem even in 1990 and starting a 'Model A' haves some resemblance with the 'Trabant').

ISTR that the checked cabs were made more or less unchanged from the late 50's to the 70's.

Rules on car age probably vary between cities, but in general it is not common to see cars over 25 years old in cab service. At some point a fleet becomes too old, beat up and or rusty to ecconomically maintain. That said limo/livery services (think taxis for rich executives/special events) often have 1 or more very old/classic cars in their fleet for certain events and tastes.

Have another question: at an old car that had throttle lever control, when you changed down gears you could use throttle control in stead of acceleration pedal in order to use the throttle lever and not the acceleration pedal when chaning down.

Perhaps you mean a choke control? Pretty sure the accelerator pedal was always connected to throttle so there never was a second throttle (ie lever) if there was an accelerator pedal.

Although I can't recall any cars having a hand operated throttle control in tandem with the floor mounted pedal , I have seen trucks with a throttle knob on the dashboard that when pulled out can be used to set the engine to a desired speed . The trucks I saw this on had PTO abilities and being able to set the throttle at some speed above idle was needed for the PTO device being driven .

The only car with lever throttle I know about is the Ford Model T. I don't know what other cars did. The Model T transmission used planetary gears, so I don't know if modulating the throttle was required.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15142307/how-to-drive-a-ford-model-t/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312190477_A_Technical_Examination_of_the_Planetary _Transmission_of_the_Ford_Model_T

IIRC, the last series of Checkers were made from like 1958-59 thru the '80s when the company finally went out of business. I THINK they subcontracted from GM making tailgates for the 1973-88 series of big Blazers & Suburbans.

I'd read that Checker made sheet metal parts for at least one of the big-3; good to know just what they were making. The head of Checker in that era had formerly been an executive with GM. Just recently I spotted a photo of some electric car prototype that they helped build in the mid-70's.

Although I can't recall any cars having a hand operated throttle control in tandem with the floor mounted pedal , I have seen trucks with a throttle knob on the dashboard that when pulled out can be used to set the engine to a desired speed . The trucks I saw this on had PTO abilities and being able to set the throttle at some speed above idle was needed for the PTO device being driven .

You just jogged my memory...around 1940 Ford cars had a dash mount throttle knob in addition to the gas pedal...The knobs only purpose was to serve as a form of primitive cruise control.

Steering wheel mounted throttle control was a thing for a while in the early days of cars. When the gas pedal showed up, there were still several car makers who included the old fashioned lever in addition to the pedal, presumably for people who were still used to that system, and hey, it could be used as cruise control too.

Apparently Model A's were among those cars.
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/article-photos/driving-model-a/driving-model-a.jpg

I was quite amazed when I've seen in that old auto book that I have that you could use the throttle lever as a cruise control form. I don't know if you could add this option at "Renault" 12, but at the Romanian version, "Dacia" 1300 you could put some kind of it.
But why they quited this option on cars? So it could be used as for accelearation too?

But what put on the move those old windscreen wipers?: electricity or vacuum?

Steering wheel mounted throttle control was a thing for a while in the early days of cars. When the gas pedal showed up, there were still several car makers who included the old fashioned lever in addition to the pedal, presumably for people who were still used to that system, and hey, it could be used as cruise control too.

Apparently Model A's were among those cars.
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/article-photos/driving-model-a/driving-model-a.jpg

I see Horn, Lighting control, and spark control on that steering wheel... The spark control would have an effect on the engine output but wasn't the same thing as throttle...Basically vacuum advance wasn't a thing in Fords yet when the model-A came to be. So Ford connected a linkage from that steering wheel control to the distributor and the driver became the vacuum advance computer...The only real advantage to that system I can think of was that back around the time of the Models T&A gas was pretty inconsistent and could be rather lousy....Manual spark control meant the driver could easily adjust the engine tune to avoid the damage of pinging/detonation regardless of what type of fortified water/strong liquor was in the gas tank.

Telecolor: the wipers in the A were probably human powered just like in the model T....Vacuum powered wipers if they were a thing then would have been only for luxury cars and would have trickled down to cheaper berands gradually. Once powered wipers became the norm they were primarily vacuum powered up into at least the mid 50's IIRC. I believe a fair number of cars still had vacuum wipers into the 60's.

I was quite amazed when I've seen in that old auto book that I have that you could use the throttle lever as a cruise control form. I don't know if you could add this option at "Renault" 12, but at the Romanian version, "Dacia" 1300 you could put some kind of it.
But why they quited this option on cars? So it could be used as for accelearation too?

But what put on the move those old windscreen wipers?: electricity or vacuum?
They likely stopped the throttle lever because of safety. In a panic stop, you'd have to have enough cognitive function to think that you need to put the lever down in order to stop. Especially on an old car with only rear brakes that could barely stop the car, nevermind the car AND the engine. That, or if you just died at the wheel, the car would keep going until it crashed into something.

As far as I can tell, Model A's had a vacuum powered wiper. It may have been optional equipment, not sure. The vacuum motor is visible in that picture, though. Google 'ford model A vacuum motor.'
I see Horn, Lighting control, and spark control on that steering wheel...
It's hard to spot. Read the bit under 'Instrument panel light.'

Some people died with rhe foot on the accelaration pedal.
They could do a systmem that canceled the throttle lever when you pressed the brake pedal.

But I wonder if I can add on steering colum a throttle lever (at least one that have 2 positions: off - a liitle bit of fuel) so I will not be force to press the acceleration pedal when changing down.

Of course you could do that. Just a matter of rigging some parts together to do what you want. Have you learned how to drive a stick yet?

No. Some one sayed he will come with a car and going to me on the auto poligon, but he didn't (yet).

And in Romania you have to modify the car in order to have double command (meaning the person that seats next to the drivers haves command pedals too) in order to be able to drive it before you have the exam and to pass the exam. So I fail and want to try with a preselector gearbox, I will have too look for another country to give the exam.
Very many years ago the double command wasn't needed in Romania.

Well that sucks. That means you basically HAVE to use a driving school to get your license, right? Hopefully your friend will just let you drive his car around a parking lot or something :/

Yes, I must use a driving school.
In Bucharest we have an auto school poligon where you can go and drive even if you don't have a driving licence. Hope one day I will get with somebody there and get a drive. I would want to try a manual gearbox car with column shifter, but theese are rare today, since most of the old cars that had it went to scrap after the "increase of the standard of living" or are not roadworthy.
But how is U.S.A.?
And why in U.S.A. it's mandatory that new cars have to have sealed light beams.

I think the lighting laws go back to right before or after WW2... The Sealed Beam system was apparently MUCH better than what they had at the time, which varied tremendously across the country..

IIRC sealed beam headlights have not been mandatory for most of my life. I think they were mandatory from the 40's to the mid 80's here...Then the government created standards that the separate bulb and reflector/lense types that are now prevalent here use.

There are probably still new column shift cars sold here...My 2002 Chevy Suburban has a column shift automatic transmission as factory equipment...Same as my 1978 Lincoln.

Now sealed beams aren't any longer mandatory in the U.S.?

Now sealed beams aren't any longer mandatory in the U.S.?
You are correct.
https://www.carid.com/articles/brief-history-of-sealed-beam-headlights-in-us.html

As a Europeanen I find strange some of the past regulation reguarding hadlamps in U.S.A.

As a Europeanen I find strange some of the past regulation reguarding hadlamps in U.S.A.
The requirement for sealed beams dates back to the early days of electric light. Cars (if you were lucky enough to have that new-fangled electricity on your car!) used to have a small light bulb inside a big lens housing, just like today. But because of light bulb technology being rather poor back then, the filament burning off would blacken the inside of the glass bulb and it would make very little light, which would be very dangerous to drive at night. Especially since halogen lights were not a 'thing' yet. So for safety's sake, the government said you need to use sealed beam lamps, because the filament is in such a large space, that when it blackens the glass, it would only be a small part, and would still emit enough light to be safe.

Of course, light bulb tech was probably good enough by the 50s or 60s to not warrant this anymore, but it's just one of those laws that stayed on the books for too long a time. By the late 80s, the regulations were changed. Some new trucks still use sealed beams, probably just because they're easier to manufacture - and the carmaker does not need to have a headlight design approved by the Department of Traffic (DOT).

Sealed beams were a selling point for some makes pre-war but designers lost some freedom. Some makes in the late 30's had some very sleek headlight designs. Probably not that good at night, though.

In '57 some automakers designed 4 headlight systems but in some states there were laws forbidding anything beyond 2 lights. It didn't take long for those laws to get changed and soon 4 became typical outside of trucks and cheaper cars. Rectangular headlights started showing up on higher priced cars in '76 from what I've seen.

Another little oddity: halogen sealed beams aren't really one big bulb, just a glass bulb with the halogen bulb attached in the middle. Many, maybe most, now use a plastic shell and lens. Cheaper that way, I guess.

Most current sealed beams are also total garbage, made with molds that wore out in the 1990s. On the small round lights, old stock, non halogen ones are generally better than the junk Sylvania ones you can buy at AutoZone today.

Wagner did just start selling sealed beams made on new molds. I noticed them in Chevy vans on my way into work. If you pay attention to headlights you can't miss them... they have a cutoff and beam control! And like all good lights, the lens of the fixture doesn't look bright, the bright spot looks like it's behind the lens.

-J

The requirement for sealed beams dates back to the early days of electric light. Cars (if you were lucky enough to have that new-fangled electricity on your car!) used to have a small light bulb inside a big lens housing, just like today. But because of light bulb technology being rather poor back then, the filament burning off would blacken the inside of the glass bulb and it would make very little light, which would be very dangerous to drive at night. Especially since halogen lights were not a 'thing' yet. So for safety's sake, the government said you need to use sealed beam lamps, because the filament is in such a large space, that when it blackens the glass, it would only be a small part, and would still emit enough light to be safe.

Of course, light bulb tech was probably good enough by the 50s or 60s to not warrant this anymore, but it's just one of those laws that stayed on the books for too long a time. By the late 80s, the regulations were changed. Some new trucks still use sealed beams, probably just because they're easier to manufacture - and the carmaker does not need to have a headlight design approved by the Department of Traffic (DOT).
My 2006 Jeep Wrangler still uses the large round headlights like were used in the '50's when the car manufacturers went to 12 volt. I guess they wanted the authenticity of the earlier models. Some of the 80's models, they went with the rectangular type that some of the others used. much to the dismay of the Jeep purists. :thumbsdn:

Oh, 'Jeep' Wrangler. Around 1998-1999 I've rode in one and wonder how could we go so fast when where doing 50. Well, after a time I realized that where doing 50 miles per hour, not 50 kilometers per hour.
And it had automatic gearbox. I thought 1, 2, 3 represnted the gears that you wanted to engage.

Oh, 'Jeep' Wrangler. Around 1998-1999 I've rode in one and wonder how could we go so fast when where doing 50. Well, after a time I realized that where doing 50 miles per hour, not 50 kilometers per hour.
And it had automatic gearbox. I thought 1, 2, 3 represnted the gears that you wanted to engage.

Most automatics have a low range and or a way to force a single gear for situations like being stuck in snow or mud or climbing or descending very steep hills...in most normal conditions 1, 2, 3 or Lo are not selected. Some people will manually shift through the gears of an automatic to check for damaged gears, or to try and launch faster (drag racing automatics are often designed to be used this way).

I don't know so much about auomatics. I think I only raided in 2 or 3 automobiles that hat automatic gearboxes (I rode automatic gearbox buses too, but they are different).

I wonder how did this taximeters worked (early on when I took another look on the site I've noticed they also had the picture of one used in Romania): http://www.fama.hu/index.php?mn=28&otip=1&prnt=28&lang=en&gkr=Museum&fbclid=IwAR0rWBNfHI-IrQBjRo0w0RHI_FqIYHqOt48NFIm7qS1D0US-tegtlgsLBFo
The had a magentic stuff mounted on the axle like at the speedometer and then an electric cable camed or it was a far more complicated sytem.
What a mecahnical wonder inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkahxS2HoZo

I believe the old mechanical ones would connect to the car's speedometer cable. Not sure about the newer ones.

True they where connected to the speedometer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Ib5efaw64
Now I have to find out what that cable connection did and how speedometer cable works.

Speedometer cables are driven by the output of the transmission. The cable spins, and rotates a magnet in the speedometer. It works a lot like a voltmeter... faster rotation makes more force and moves the needle further against the clock spring.

Cars with mechanical speedos, but with cruise control, will have an impulse sensor someplace... either on the back of the speedometer or in a little box in line with the cable. Then the cruise control unit counts pulses.

Electronic Taxi meters work the same way :) On newer cars they just tap into the vehicle speed signal.

Regarding selecting gear ranges in an automatic, that will do different things depending on the car.

In the 2003 F350 we had, the shift pattern was PRND321. From a stop, if you shifted into 2, the truck would move off in 2! And if you shifted into 3, it would move off in 3! Nice to have that control. It had a "5" speed automatic. Technically, it could make 6 different ratios: It was a 3 speed with an overdrive on the end. But 2 of the ratios ended up being very close. The "2" gear was actually 1st + overdrive, and 3 was really 2nd.
As the truck was warming up it would shift 1, 1OD, 2, 2OD, 3OD; when warm it would shift 1, 1OD, 2, 3, 3OD. 2OD was slightly shorter than 3, so it made the engine run 200 rpm or so faster.

In a friends 76 Mercedes, the shift pattern is PRNDSL (Drive, Slope, Low). It's a 4 speed automatic, but it moves off from a stop in 2nd in drive. If you shift into S / 3, it will move off in 2nd and then shift to 3rd only. If you put it in L / 2, it will move off in 1st, then shift to 2nd. From a stop in D, if you floor it it will kick down to 1st as the car starts moving.

In another friends 85 Mercedes, the shift pattern is PRD32. When you come to a stop in D, the transmission actually rests in 2nd gear. As you touch the accelerator, before the throttle opens, the transmission kicks down to 1st gear so you move off in 1st. This makes the car "pull" less as you're sitting at a light.

Some 78-80 Mercedes accomplished the same thing, but in a more rube goldberg method... they had a small computer box that read the pulses coming from the cruise control pickup, to know when the car was stopped. It looked at the brake light switch too. Like my friends 76, the transmission rests in 2nd gear in D at a stop. But the little box would look for the brake lights turning off after the car was stopped (ie, you took your foot off the brake), and energize the kickdown circuit to shift the transmission into 1st.

-J

And classical taximeters workes with that cable too?
How hard it was that adaptation?

I'm guessing they had the drive cable go up to the meter, then out from the meter to the car's speedometer.

Not too hard, but you'd need specialized gears, and cable ends.

And the cable spined or?

A speedometer cable has a thick outer casing, and an inner part that spins.

Here's some info from the Mk2 VW Service Manual:

http://eva2.homeip.net/eva2/BD01/ch4.1.1.html

The drive gear has a different number of teeth depending on the final drive / differential ratio of the transmission. This results in the same number of rotations of the cable for all transmissions.

-J

In a friends 76 Mercedes, the shift pattern is PRNDSL (Drive, Slope, Low). It's a 4 speed automatic, but it moves off from a stop in 2nd in drive. If you shift into S / 3, it will move off in 2nd and then shift to 3rd only. If you put it in L / 2, it will move off in 1st, then shift to 2nd. From a stop in D, if you floor it it will kick down to 1st as the car starts moving.
We call that the rabbit gear. It's completely stupid if you ask me. Most Mercedes all the way up into the 2000's start in 2nd, and are designed to do so. I've yet to find one that actually shifts to 1st when you pull off. They all start in 2nd and only drop down to 1st if you really gas it.

This leads to people thinking they have a transmission problem, and - quite frankly - making Mercedes cars really unpleasant to drive. Because even one with a big v8 feels like it has no balls.

On the 1980s gas S Classes, they all moved off from a stop in 2nd gear in the USA... except for the 500SEL which had the same type of auto kickdown module as the 78-80 300SD. But like the cruise control modules, bad solder joints and failed capacitors mean this is usually broken.

In europe, the Gen2 W126 (1986+) with the 722.3 transmission got a "program selector" on the gearshift. It would trigger a vacuum solenoid, which moved a pivot in the transmission throttle cable where it attaches to the transmission, making the cable shorter when in the "sport" setting and from the transmission's perspective look like you're giving it more throttle pedal. This would make it hold gear longer, and also move off in first gear from a stop. US cars never got the "program selector" until the 722.6.

The 2000s 722.6 transmission cars move off in first gear in the normal program, and use second when you select the winter program. Those are also a 3 speed + od trans, so they can apply the OD in reverse too, which it does in the winter program.

Chrysler used that transmission in all their cars until just a few years ago!

Part of the reason the 722.1 cars move off in second is the 1-2 shift is really firm. On the 300D I don't think it makes the car any faster moving off in first... it just makes more noise as the engine revs up, then BANG it shifts to second and keeps going.

-J

My Dad's 59 Mercury started in 2nd like that. The control box had no sophistication in modulating the down-shift to 1st (which it would do if you floored it), and it felt like it was going to destroy itself with the rough jerk that occurred.

I love preselector gearboxes with simple manual comand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ604sMV3Dk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou_p3Y_oZMg