Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
(Hey there list...long time lurker, first time poster) quote- > The key here is that people love > their suv's and don't care about the mpg's or the $ > they spend. That is why the little jap and Korean > cars are getting heftier and have worse mileage than > they did when they entered the American market. > It's > us the consumer, they are just providing the buying > public with what it is they want. I totally agree with Steve here...All they're doing is pandering to the childish and wanton desires of the car buying public, whatever they may be at the time...(It wasn't that long ago that we were all totin' around in Toyota Corollas and Ford Taruses that could barely make it up a hill, but they got really nice fuel economy though...Oh yes, the Go Go 90s...Now a Toyota Corolla is a quick little car, with a fully loaded V6 it will run on high-octane Premium Gas only...just go to the Oy Toyota website...lol!) I just love generic car rants like this one, by the way...:D And ya know I've observed something, too...There seems to be a pattern in the tastes' of the American car buying public over the decades, one that waxes and wanes...It seems roughly every 20 years the desire seems to shift from smaller, sleeker and more efficient to bigger, better and more powerful...The 1920s for instance was probably America's first true "muscle car" war...Longer, studier chasises and wheelbases and more MPH and horsepower were certainly all the rage back then, especially in the sales literature (some of the Lincolns and Deusenbergs of the era boasted wheelbase lengths of some 140 - 160 inches, I believe)... 20 years later was The War, so obviously bigger and more powerful wasn't quite as popular at the time (our steel and other supplies were taxed, and the auto makes weren't even in production then)...It seemed as if for a time the "bigger, better more powerful" fetish had died, giving way to a new kind of communal support for our soldiers...People didn't do a whole lot of driving in their cars in those days, and those that did often drove old used ones... Then another 20 years later was the 60s...Gas was cheap and the size, curb weights and hp ratings were at their highest...Again, 20 years later cars were smaller, sleeker and more aerodynamic (Carter and Reagan) and the last thing most Americans wanted or could afford then was a 2 1/2 ton assault tank with 8 cylinders (alla 81 Yawnda Civic or diesel V-lkswagon Rabbit)... Now 20 years later at the turn of this new century, Americans tastes' have once again shifted to bigger, better and more power (the Cadillac EscaPade, for instance weighs roughly 5000 pounds and makes a whopping 375 hp...Whopping by 90s standards)...It appears as if there is something of a reneissance happening in the American car industry today...Given, those road turtles and sailboats you see today aren't nearly as beautiful or well engineered as our chrome plated steel bodied coupes sedans and wagons, but their performance is definately competitive as well as their dimensions (not just the truck/van/SUV fad, even passenger cars are getting quicker and bulkier, too as Steve pointed out)...I don't like the cars and trucks of today...Their stodginess and sameism does not appeal to me, though I will say this: We've come a long way from the econoboxes of the 80s and 90s... So I guess it's just a pattern...a cycle...sortof like the presidential assasination attempts, the so-called "Killing Of The King" phenomenon that also seems to strike every 20-30 years... I guess when Americans finally decide to grow up and make up their minds and choose if they want to drive a Panzer or a shopping cart, perhaps then the avg. auto will squeeze 100-200 miles out of a gallon of gas...but for now and for the last 80 years of car history, that doesn't look like something that will EVER happen...People are simply too fickle... =Yochanan 84 Olds Custom Cruiser 311 68 Chrysl3r Town & Country 440 Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com)
Fwd: Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
Note: forwarded message attached. Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview) --- Begin Message --- very simple...wouldn't sell enough to be profitable. They did away with the camaro and trans am because the suv's were more profitable and they needed the rear wheel assembly plants to make those. All about $. My 78'chevro;et cheyenne with the 307 smogger I own still gets 22 mpg. Not bad for a 30 year old truck with 195000 miles and going strong. The little Escort I just picked up gets 33 all around mpg, nothing special about it and if they put their diesel in it it would get an easy 50 mpg. The key here is that people love their suv's and don't care about the mpg's or the $ they spend. That is why the little jap and Korean cars are getting heftier and have worse mileage than they did when they entered the American market. It's us the consumer, they are just providing the buying public with what it is they want. Don't blame the oil companies.but that is a whole nother conversation!!! Is "nother" real word? Anyway I've always thought that a Sterling engine run on a small flame turning 1000 rpms or so hooked to an alternator and bumped up to run 4 ac motors at each wheel would yield a car that would run at hundreds of miles per gallan. Only I don't know anything about electricity and how to bump it up. The Sterling engine is a fascinating little engine, I still think my idea is sound but there a re alot of great minds and it hasn't been applied so their must be something wrong with my idea. Any thoughts Milton, Fred?Steven __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --- End Message ---
Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
I think Big Oil will not let the car makers build a car that gets really good miliage. Take the Chevy Aveo for example. It should get at least 15 mpg better than it does. It doesn't look like anything. Big Oil won't be making big money if cars got good mpg. later, Troy
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
> Personally I would rather drive something with better mileage than less, > if nothing more than to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Same reason > I drive ONLY American cars to begin with I guess. Actually, it all depends on how jaded one's world view is. The amount of both greed and stupidity we allow is pathetic. I can introduce you to a man who has been in the oil business for 47 years. He will tell you and can prove to anyone who wishes to listen that the ***known*** U.S. oil reserves off both the U.S. eastern and western coasts and off the U.S. gulf coast is about 5 times larger than all of the mid-east oil reserves combined. We can't drill for that oil because every affected state's governor refuses to allow it for fear it would hurt tourism. That state's Congressional delegation generally backs up that state's governor. Stupid and self-serving. The same goes for the known oil reserves in Alaska. What's under the north slope is bigger than you can imagine. But our Liberal Elite wants us dependent on foreign oil for that can be manipulated to increase the power base of the Liberal Elite. We have met the enemy, and he is us. And then we have very safe nuclear power that the rest of the world uses, but we haven't had a new nuke plant for 30 years. Britain, Japan, and Western Europe have 4th generation nuke plants that are super safe. When's the last time you ever heard the media scream about a nuke accident? Not in the past 30 years in any of those nations, because it doesn't happen. I'd much rather have electricity produced by nukes than burn natural gas, fuel oil, and coal. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT but is IS Halloween
I did that and it refused. The webpage specifically told me I was locked out. The other URL from the other List member's costume worked just fine. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "JOHN ORR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:26 PM Subject: Re: OT but is IS Halloween > Karen, > just add this to the end "es.jpg" and it will take you right there > > john orr > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.22/512 - Release Date: 11/1/2006 > 2:40 PM > >
Re: OT but is IS Halloween
Karen, just add this to the end "es.jpg" and it will take you right there john orr
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Joe - The higher fuel economy cars died on the vine so to speak because fuel became cheap / readily available again after the 70's early 80's. The Civic that you mention was rated at 67 highway and 55 in the city - in 1984 ! Of course, dropping the CAFE requirements did not help anyone either in the long run. I am different that a lot on here - I do believe that we need to start to build fuel efficient cars as things are different that in the 60's. Nothing wrong with the 60's cars, and not that I want in anyway to stop driving them. No in fact, I believe in going forward, we as a nation need to stop producing inefficient vehicles that are capable of speeds in excess of 125 mph, when nowhere in this nation can you legally drive faster than 75 mph. Personally I would rather drive something with better mileage than less, if nothing more than to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Same reason I drive ONLY American cars to begin with I guess. Set the base minimal highway mileage at say, 50 mpg minimum for cars, 30 mpg for light trucks - and see what happens - well I can tell you what will happen as it has happened in the past - you will get cars and trucks that will do just that, get better mileage and still be fast enough to get a speeding ticket in ANY of the fifty states - (yes - the aforementioned 84' Civic had a top speed of 89 mph - I know, I drove one) and we as a nation will still get to our jobs, get to the store and do those things that need to get done, and as a bonus, it will make all of those with a older / higher performance car richer - as I am sure that it will make them more valuable. More rambling / puzzling thoughts to add to your own Joe - David
Re: Disassembly for frame painting/powdercoat
Hmm, I did this very thing on the wife's car (71 S). Doing the body work last is the way I usually go but this is the last time. I'm tired of masking the car to the floor to keep the entire chassis/driveline clean. Still have to do a final block sand on the body then it'll be about ready for paint. Chassis/driveline is all done and has been for a long time (that is my favorite part of the hobby). Everythng is restored except the seats and it will need piped and bumpers Anyway, Lift up the body, roll out the chassis, tear it apart and have all the stuff blasted that will get reused or that you don't want to strip yourself. Set the body on some stands or something else nice and sturdy. Certain body work and all gap alignment will have to be done with the body onthe frame eventually. Ryan - Original Message - From: "Tim Rudolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:23 PM Subject: Disassembly for frame painting/powdercoat I'm looking at getting the body off the frame of my '69 442 convertible in order to blast and paint or coat the frame. I don't have a heck of a lot of space in my garage and I am not currently planning on doing the blasting/coating myself. I was thinking(hoping?) I could save some money by doing the disassembly of the car myself and then having it trailered/towed to a shop to do the work. Has anyone taken this approach? Does anyone have some feedback on how far I should go with disassembly? I don't have an huge budget in the short term, but I'm willing to spend some money to do it right. Since body work is likely the next step, does it make sense to put the body back on in its current shape, or just have someone take care of that as well at the same time? I'd be curious to hear some thoughts and theories here. Tim
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
May I say that I myself would add 250 lbs to the car just by getting it? 60/40 mpg sounds fair ! - Original Message - From: "Joe Vahabzadeh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: OT: thoughts on fuel economy Okay, I meant to ask something about this before, but kept putting it off A recent Hot Rod magazine (Nov 06) had a little blurb on the bottom of p30 that said "100 MPG is yesterday's news", and mentioned the 1982 result of Project Saturn, which was a 2-seater economy car, 3 cylinder, 5 speed, that averaged 105 MPG on the highway and 75 MPG in the city (on a trip from Warren, Michigan, to New York). The last sentence: "Since meeting federal safety requirements and adding creature comforts would have added 200 pounds to the car and required extra horsepower to propel it, GM dropped the program." Ok, now, this isn't exactly a car that would necessarily appeal to us from an enthusiast's point of view, but for the majority of people, and yes, myself included, as a car just to get to and from work everyday, it seems like it would've been a good idea. After all, I've heard/read a number of stories about people in the 70s and 80s picking up musclecars dirt cheap because so many of the commuting public in general were discarding their gas-guzzlers for economy cars. Alright . . so, how much/little could this car have weighed? So, let's say they added the 200 lbs or whatever. What would that have brought the fuel economy down to? Would it be fair to say, maybe, 60 MPG highway, and 40 city, or a loss of about 40% of fuel economy due to the extra weight? Wouldn't this have sold well in 1982, given the price of gas then? So then, why drop the program? I mean, heck, the Honda CRX, HF version, which came out in, what, 1983 or 1984, could manage over 50 MPG on the highway. It wasn't going to impress anyone with its acceleration, but they did it with a carburetor, and in a car weighing 1900 lbs. I imagine the Project Saturn car weighed notably less to achieve the fuel economy numbers that it did... enough so that I would assume that the 200 extra pounds would've still had this car under the 1900 lb mark. And, of course, my further question: If they could do that with the technology available in 1982, where's the 100 MPG car of today? Yes, these are the things that sometimes puzzle me at odd hours - Joe Vahabzadeh
Disassembly for frame painting/powdercoat
I'm looking at getting the body off the frame of my '69 442 convertible in order to blast and paint or coat the frame. I don't have a heck of a lot of space in my garage and I am not currently planning on doing the blasting/coating myself. I was thinking(hoping?) I could save some money by doing the disassembly of the car myself and then having it trailered/towed to a shop to do the work. Has anyone taken this approach? Does anyone have some feedback on how far I should go with disassembly? I don't have an huge budget in the short term, but I'm willing to spend some money to do it right. Since body work is likely the next step, does it make sense to put the body back on in its current shape, or just have someone take care of that as well at the same time? I'd be curious to hear some thoughts and theories here. Tim
OT: thoughts on fuel economy
Okay, I meant to ask something about this before, but kept putting it off A recent Hot Rod magazine (Nov 06) had a little blurb on the bottom of p30 that said "100 MPG is yesterday's news", and mentioned the 1982 result of Project Saturn, which was a 2-seater economy car, 3 cylinder, 5 speed, that averaged 105 MPG on the highway and 75 MPG in the city (on a trip from Warren, Michigan, to New York). The last sentence: "Since meeting federal safety requirements and adding creature comforts would have added 200 pounds to the car and required extra horsepower to propel it, GM dropped the program." Ok, now, this isn't exactly a car that would necessarily appeal to us from an enthusiast's point of view, but for the majority of people, and yes, myself included, as a car just to get to and from work everyday, it seems like it would've been a good idea. After all, I've heard/read a number of stories about people in the 70s and 80s picking up musclecars dirt cheap because so many of the commuting public in general were discarding their gas-guzzlers for economy cars. Alright . . so, how much/little could this car have weighed? So, let's say they added the 200 lbs or whatever. What would that have brought the fuel economy down to? Would it be fair to say, maybe, 60 MPG highway, and 40 city, or a loss of about 40% of fuel economy due to the extra weight? Wouldn't this have sold well in 1982, given the price of gas then? So then, why drop the program? I mean, heck, the Honda CRX, HF version, which came out in, what, 1983 or 1984, could manage over 50 MPG on the highway. It wasn't going to impress anyone with its acceleration, but they did it with a carburetor, and in a car weighing 1900 lbs. I imagine the Project Saturn car weighed notably less to achieve the fuel economy numbers that it did... enough so that I would assume that the 200 extra pounds would've still had this car under the 1900 lb mark. And, of course, my further question: If they could do that with the technology available in 1982, where's the 100 MPG car of today? Yes, these are the things that sometimes puzzle me at odd hours - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: To Sell or Not
In a message dated 11/1/2006 1:02:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce (our IL Governors usually go to prison) Roe ours just get re-elected besides doing things that SHOULD have sent them to prison. Bernie Segebade NJ
Re: To Sell or Not(car theft)
Also gang...on the newer cars..watch those electronic key fobs we use to open our cars doors now. What happens alot is you lock your car at home in the driveway..and as you move about the housesometimes you unlock the car without knowing. Like when you hear people hit their alarm buttons on the key fobs all the time. Well, the same thing happens with the locks on your car. Then presto..some kids wait till night and just try the door handles on cars...presto..doors open. Harry Mager HotRodHarrys.com In a message dated 11/1/2006 4:58:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Same problem here. There is a large multiplex movie theater not far from my office that is notorious for car thefts/break-ins. Good thing I'm not a movie fan! Greg Beaulieu[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Olds List Admin Info: http://oldslist.oldsgmail.com
Re: To Sell or Not
hey greg, you have crime in canada? :-) john orr 67 cutlass supreme 4 spd tampa
Re: To Sell or Not
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Duane Parks wrote: > You may have a point there about vehicles being worth more in parts > (provided you have buyers) than in one piece. For this reason I worry about > taking my 72 out on movie dates with the wife. There's a recent run on > thefts in movie theater parking lots around Houston...apparently thieves > have figured out that when cars show up, the owners will be away from them > for at least 1.5 hours which is plenty of time to have their way with the > owners' belongings/vehicle. Same problem here. There is a large multiplex movie theater not far from my office that is notorious for car thefts/break-ins. Good thing I'm not a movie fan! Greg Beaulieu[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Olds List Admin Info: http://oldslist.oldsgmail.com
Re: James' VIN stamp, now need 1968 info.
Christopher Witt wrote: http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/455one/?action=view¤t=enginerunning.jpg NICE SHOT James Got that fan spinning just like the factory pix. sweet. Yeah, that's great but shouldn't we see coolant gushing out or is the thermostat still closed? See ya, Gene
Re: James' VIN stamp, now need 1968 info.
Chris, Vinny I have looked extensivley over my 68 frame, it is bare metal, and have not found any vin type number. I doubt it exist for 68. Kerry --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I looked over my 68 frame yesterday and I see no > such stamp > > Vinny > 62 Starfire (long gone) > 64 442 post coupe (sold) > 65 442 holiday (my first car,long gone) > 65 442 post coupe (long gone) > 70 W31 Cutlass (long gone) > 77 Cutlass Supreme Brougham T-Tops (long gone) > 83 98 coupe (long gone) > 86 442 (stolen 3 weeks after I bought it) > 95 Caddy Seville SLS (lease, gone) > 98 Caddy Eldo ETC ( lease, gone) > 01 Aurora (lease, gone) > 96 Chevy Tahoe (gone) > 99 Caddy STS (gone) > 68 Hurst/Oldsmobile W45 #511Still mine > 2007 Tahoe LT Daily Driver > > > To see my cars, click here Yahoo! Photos - My 1968 > Hurst Olds Pictures or > cut and paste this link into your search box > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hurstoldz/album?.dir=/bb8e&.src=ph&.tok=phptunDB > tLO21kvG > >
Re: small block factory dual exhaust manifolds
Hello, The reason I asked is because I have a 72 Supreme(another money pit) that was a 5 years "project" car. It was my second Olds I got years ago. Should have just parted it out but I didn't know any better back then. Things did to the car, changed frame(western frame) rebuilt original 350 but changed to Edelbrock intake/headers, Rossler did the original trans, KTRacing turned the original corporate 10 bolt into 3:73 posi, new quarter panels & inner wheel-wheel-trunk floor, replaced doors/front fenders/core support/bumpers/ trunk filler panel/patched floors/ interior/ sport mirrors/ re-popped Ram-air hood, painted original Viking Blue with light silver inserts on the ram air part of hood. I drove the car 250 miles, covered it up and stored it in one of my building,haven't moved it in 3 years. I have other Olds that I "fell" in love with so this car was on a back-burner. So, now I am planning on "digging" it out and making factory "stock" bracket race car for those Muscle Car Races. I have a big-block race car(78 Cutlass) and two street cars (67 ninety eight & 71 Delta conv) big blocks, so I was thinking a SMALL block would be different. Thats why I was wondering about factory dual exhaust manifolds for the small blocks. I don't know a lot about the rules for these races except I would have to be correct numbers and factory iron intake/ manifolds/carb. Maybe I will go to plan B, I have a former race car engine, G-headed(I think I can get by 1972 #s) .060 over 455. This engine went 11:[EMAIL PROTECTED] in a 3600# G-body. Freshen it up, put factory iron intake/Y/Z exhaust manifolds/quadra-jet. This may take a year or two, just one more thing I would like to do. So many Olds/projects, so little time, Kenkenneth treharn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello List, Just wondering how hard it is to find the factory stock manifolds for a 68-72 A-body ? I know they re-pop the big block ones but I have read they don't work on the small blocks. What is the reason they don't work? The bigger ports on the manifolds the problem or do they hit somewhere. Thanks, Ken Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Re: James' VIN stamp, now need 1968 info.
I looked over my 68 frame yesterday and I see no such stamp Vinny 62 Starfire (long gone) 64 442 post coupe (sold) 65 442 holiday (my first car,long gone) 65 442 post coupe (long gone) 70 W31 Cutlass (long gone) 77 Cutlass Supreme Brougham T-Tops (long gone) 83 98 coupe (long gone) 86 442 (stolen 3 weeks after I bought it) 95 Caddy Seville SLS (lease, gone) 98 Caddy Eldo ETC ( lease, gone) 01 Aurora (lease, gone) 96 Chevy Tahoe (gone) 99 Caddy STS (gone) 68 Hurst/Oldsmobile W45 #511Still mine 2007 Tahoe LT Daily Driver To see my cars, click here Yahoo! Photos - My 1968 Hurst Olds Pictures or cut and paste this link into your search box http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hurstoldz/album?.dir=/bb8e&.src=ph&.tok=phptunDB tLO21kvG
James' VIN stamp, now need 1968 info.
http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f124/455one/?action=view¤t=enginerunning.jpg NICE SHOT James Got that fan spinning just like the factory pix. sweet. Thanks for the VIN stamp location cues as well. now who can document the 1968 VIN stamp locations? Looks like it will be years before I can afford to take my car apart for what it needs. WANTED: 1968-9 2 groove Water Pump PULLEY "KA-401462" stamp . NOT the common PS Pump Pulley. Must have 4 bolt holes + center hole for water pump use. --- Chris Witt *the* Rocket Scientist 1303 W. Miller Rd. Lansing MI 48911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message. Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days _ Use your PC to make calls at very low rates https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
Re: To Sell or Not
You may have a point there about vehicles being worth more in parts (provided you have buyers) than in one piece. For this reason I worry about taking my 72 out on movie dates with the wife. There's a recent run on thefts in movie theater parking lots around Houston...apparently thieves have figured out that when cars show up, the owners will be away from them for at least 1.5 hours which is plenty of time to have their way with the owners' belongings/vehicle.So, the Olds doesn't go to the movies anymore. She does, however, get to go visit our friends around town, go out to eat, go run the occasional errand, all the while never getting wet unless it's time for a wash. I tell ya, some cars have it easy! Duane72 Cutlass ConvertibleOn 10/31/06, spddemun <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:That's scary! I keep thinking mine is worth more dead(in parts) than alive (one piece). And we have the problem here of cars disappearing across the border.I've always been registered with the State'sborder-theft program, but that's just a sticker thatcould be removed. Karen
Re: small block factory dual exhaust manifolds
Ken, The deck height is different between a small block and a big block. That's why a big block is wider from head to head and takes a wider intake manifold than a small block. A right side big block cast iron exhaust manifold on a small block will hit the right side of the crankcase on the block. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "kenneth treharn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:17 AM Subject: small block factory dual exhaust manifolds > Hello List, Just wondering how hard it is to find the factory stock > manifolds for a 68-72 A-body ? I know they re-pop the big block ones but I > have read they don't work on the small blocks. What is the reason they > don't work? The bigger ports on the manifolds the problem or do they hit > somewhere. Thanks, Ken > > > > - > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
