Another car questions + opinions

[MadMan]

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

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

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

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).

Originally Posted by Telecolor 3007

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