"Progress" (?!!)

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Have to let of a little steam here;<P>Regarding "progress", "technological advances", and other hooey...<P>Just replaced the composite headlight capsules on my daily-driver '93 Escort GT <BR>(Think we'll see that at an antique car show 20 years from now? ), because they were so dull & dingy inside that I couldn't see where I was going at night!<P>I thought the manufacturers switched to "Sealed-Beams" in 1940 for just this reason! A sealed lamp that always stayed in focus and retained consistent brightness through its working life etc. !<P>I've seen a lot of late model cars (seems to be mostly Fords & Chrysler Corp) with these "composite headlights" which are going yellow or green. On some, the lenses are almost opaque!<BR>Even saw one with 3 inches of water in it!<BR>(Didn't find any Goldfish, though it wouldn't have surprised me!)<P>Now, when a sealed-beam burns-out, I can get another one for between $6 & $10 dollars (even a new 6-volt!), and she's "good as new".<BR>These aftermarket headlight envelopes were over $80.00 each!<BR>(They're nice'n brite now, and the aiming screws actually work...but still!)<P>I guess we're just not supposed to keep a car more than 3 or 4 years nowadays...<P>Maybe I can do a sealed-beam "down-grade"conversion on the Escort next time!

[ply33]

I've also seen some older Volvos with opaque plastic headlight lenses. So it is not just North American manufacturers.<P>My impression was that the requirement for sealed beam headlights was relaxed for two reasons: 1) The Europeans showed that you could make good bulb and reflector headlights. 2) The manufacturers were claiming that they could not get good aerodynamics for better gas mileage without integrating the headlight shape into the body better.<P>You will note that the aerodynamics for better mileage argument is not really valid: The average mileage of a car on the highways in the US today is worse than the average car of 20 years ago.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Stand in front of Ed Blennd's '34 Packard some night after he's just polished those silver reflectors and tell me they don't throw enough light. People were just too lazy to keep them shined up. The cost of these new lens/bulb combos is ridiculous. I like the idea of the "downgrade" solution.

[Guest]

I agree, plastic polycarbonate lenses for headlights are a dumb idea as well as those plastic chrome flashed reflectors that seem to turn black with any kind of moisture contamination in the housing.

[Bill Stoneberg]

The ones on my Dodge truck got dull and lifeless and the dealer wanted too much money for a new one.<BR>I got the plastic polishing kit from Eastwood and used it to make it look and work like new. Shortly after doing this, I hit a pole smashing the lite.

[Guest]

Hey,lighten up guys.<BR>try to see it from the manufacturer's point of view, think of the per-unit savings with blow-moulded lenses instead of heavy,expensive glass which is not only old-fashioned but dangerous as well! think of the damage that a flying sliver could inflict!

[DugsSin]

Be glad you don't have the HID lights. Seems they are being removed at the local malls by aahh, uumm (entrepreneurs) while folks are shopping.<BR> These are major $$$ to replace.

[Guest]

The next time you need a headlight, try the salvage yard. Parts like that are very inexpensive and most of the time are not charged for at all.

[Tom Deering]

GM Bob,<BR> I didn't find any composite head lights being given away while traveling in Michigan a few years ago. Had to pay $160.00 for a used unit in a recycling yard for an '89 Cadillac.<BR>Thought it was bettr than paying over $200.00 for a new one at a dealer. That was one expensive little pebble!<P> Tom

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Regarding Salvage yard headlites,<P><BR>Usually, I'd be "thrifty" and scrounge a set from a local yard who usually treats me very well, but (here's where Dad's "fatherly advice" comes back ot haunt me!) I just don't seem to have the time (or decent weather) to do that these days!<P>More irony; I installed these new "envelopes" last Friday; yesterday, on the way home from work during a snow squall, I watched in moderate horror as the newer Jeep Grand Cherokee in front of me on the "on-ramp" of the expressway began to fish tail, then oscillate 180 degrees a couple of times, finally coming to rest still upright, with its front bumper just inches from the guard rail. <BR>Had I not been driving "defensively" (read: keeping my distance), I could've had those new headlights wiped-out! <P>SUVs are another "rant waiting to happen";<BR>hopefully I want inflict that one on this forum!

[1937hd45]

There is nothing wrong with SUV's! The nut behind the wheel of some of them is in question.

[Guest]

Whether or not anything is wrong with suv's is strictly a matter of personal opinion, I think they reflect a fundamental core values deficit in society as a whole,these obese, cheaply made chariots of entitlement and clueless yuppie flippancies, will they be the Pierce Arrows and Caddy v16's Lincolns and Packards of tomorrow? I doubt it.

[Tom Deering]

Frank,<P> I can relate to your experience of nearly wasting your expensive new headlights in a collision.<BR>In the story I told above, the headlight was bought on July 3rd. On the way home on July 7, my wife "parked" the car about 200 feet off the road in a swamp. I was so ticked, I sold the car on the spot and we rode together with me driving the truck and trailer and she was relegated to being a passenger for the next 2800 miles.<P> On the subject of SUVs; I have a theory about people who buy them. They seem to be people who have gotten used to taking their feet with them. Did you ever try riding as a passenger in a modern unit body passenger car for more than a couple hours? Your foot placement options are VERY limited. In a truck based vehicle like an SUV, where you have a body on a frame, the floor is almost always far more spacious than a car floor. The last time any passenger was known to re-position his feet in a Camaro or Firebird was 1981. (still luvem though). <P> Tom

[Guest]

Desoto Frank-<BR> I always jump at the chance to spend a few hours in a salvage yard. There's something about them that makes me feel very comfortable, and the time just flies by. When I was a kid in the sixties, I would hunt down new yards just to climb over the old cars to see what I could uncover. The yards have changed, but the familiar feeling is still there, and I still manage to find something useful.

[Guest]

since we're drifting near the SUV rant...<P>Last I checked, no laws of physics had been repealed, so a heavy vehicle with its center of mass high and forward still accelerates, brakes, and handles like a pig. For a big vehicle with marginal brakes, body on frame, and a pushrod V8, I have a 57 Olds - no need for a new SUV.

[Guest]

I ran you a close second with my '57 plymouth wagon, nice looking but undertired, poorly assembled, marginal brakes and a massive pitch and roll around slow corners.

[Guest]

There is only one worse driver on the planet than the typical SUV driver, I hate to even utter the word.<P>MINIVAN driver.

[Guest]

Hear,hear! I guess poor little Betty feels so safe and secure ferrying little snookums about that driving skill and the ability to manage what is essentially a truck is completely secondary.

[Dave@Moon]

I've been roughed up on the road nearly every time I've been within 5' of a Ford Expedition. This thing is an 6-8 mpg SUV that ate a minivan! These drivers think they're absolutely invulnerable. <P>Of course you can't expect proficient mental calisthenics from someone who'd buy a station wagon body adapted to what is really a dump truck chassis!

[Guest Skyking]

I agree about these SUV's being ridiculous. If there's one in front of you, you can't see anything in front for miles except that oversized truck. If there's one in back of you they blind you with there lights. I laugh everytime I see one. All this vehicle with one person in it. Some are big enough to be used as a bus............

[1937hd45]

Chuck, I guess you don't have idiots driving Isusi Troopers up there. Hopefully your Troopers can wack them at the border.

[Guest]

1937HD, Up here in the great white north we have our share of gigantic full size SUV's. The reasoning here is that with the snow you have to have a big four wheel drive. We had a city stopping 4 ft snow in 86 and I drove around in my 74 Civic picking up friends that were stranded in their 4X4's because once you get them stuck, YOUR STUCK. Front wheel drive and snow were meant for each other. <BR>Mostly up here it's the minivan scourge that gets my goat, I have yet to see one of them shoulder check before making a lane change. This morning on the way to work I counted at the stop light because of this thread, here were the results.<P>6 cars-including mine. 2 on cell phones.<BR>12 Trucks-mostly Chevy's. 4 on cell phones.<BR>15 SUV's-of all types. Half on cell phones.<BR>23 Minivans-3/4's on cell phones!!!<P>Even I was surprised.

[rocketraider]

My daily driver is an 83 Olds big wagon. I work with a crowd who are into, to be polite, conspicuous consumption. Meaning the parking lot is full of outsized Expeditions, Lincoln Navigators and Caddy Escalades (why GM thinks Cadillac needs a truck line is still beyond me), not to mention GM's grown-up Aztek, the Chevy Avalanche!<P>They say, "why do you keep driving that old station wagon? Station wagons are out of style!" And I just smile to myself as I watch them hop into their supersize station wagons. <P>Add to the SUV/minivan/cell phone rant, Volvos. I've been cut off, run out the road, nearly rear-ended by Volvos so many times I'm convinced they're the vehicle of choice for non-driving idiots. Must be something in Volvo advertising about safest car in the world that attracts them. And there's more than a few Volvos in the parking lot too...

[Guest BruceW]

I guess I am one of the heathen, low life scourges that everyone here wants to hunt down and kill. I admit that we have an SUV, which is a 1996 S10 Blazer. <P>(The DFers may voice their boos, hisses and death threats here) <P>Normally we drive the Model A Ford to events within several hundred miles. However I needed something with sufficient towing capacity for pulling trailer with Model A Ford aboard on long distances in a timely manner. The 21 mpg v6 Vortec engine and 5,000lb towing capacity provide sufficent towing for pulling the 2335lb Model A, trailer and 4 adults over the mountains that need to be traversed to head west. <P>I also needed the ability to haul myself, wife, two teenage daughters, luggage (ever see how much luggage two teenage girls can have for a two week trip??) and sometimes camping gear, long distances while pulling the trailer and antique car, without forcing the daughters to ride in the back of an open pickup, squish themselves into a the sufficating confines of an extended cab pickup, or sit precareously perched on the trailer for 1,000 miles or more. <P>Please forgive me for my sins. Hopefully one day I too will learn the secret of how everyone else here apparently manages to haul antique cars, people and assorted items to far away distances with extremely fuel efficient, public friendly, sedans and sub compacts.

[Guest]

As long as your shoulder checking and not incessantly on a cell phone, I don't have a problem with truck/minivan/SUV drivers.<BR>Don't you think you could tow with something that's not 6 ft tall if the manufacturers would bring back the full size wagon?

[Dave@Moon]

Bruce,<P>Obviously we don't. What some of us do is save the use of heavy equipment for when it's needed, instead of driving it everyday. Even if you don't own one at all, you can always rent a suitable tow vehicle for the time it's needed, saving the extra $1000-$1500 in annual operating costs the typical SUV requires over a similarly sized car (i.e. Ford Taurus wagon, etc.). That makes the $20/day U-Haul pickup an amazing bargain.<P>The knowledge that we're contributing less than our share to the decline of the world ecosystem comes at no additional cost. <P>By the way, 21 mpg from a V6 Blazer is extremely good milage. My V6 S10 Blazer (1991), which was my old state car when I was an environmental inspector, strained to top 15 mpg, even on highway trips. I don't know anyone with a four-wheeler who can routinely break 20 mpg (although my brother's 5sp V6 4WD full-size GMC flirts with it on highway trips). <P>Are you just quoting highway figures, or is your milage typical? Either way it's very good. <P>(Since you asked, I do my hauling in a 2WD Ranger 5sp that gets 23/27 mpg, but often I get away with using my sub-compact station wagon which gets 31/38 mpg.)

[ply33]

Up front I will admit I have a 4x4. It is a 11 year old Jeep Cherokee that still gets me about 20 mph in town and nearly 25 on the highway. I use it for backcountry access. For example we are going up to the mountains for cross country skiing tomorrow. I don't really consider the old Cherokee or the S10 Blazer mentioned above to be SUVs with capital letters. They are both tiny compared to the newer stuff.<P>My particular peeve is directed at Chevy Suburban drivers. But this all stems from July 4, 2000 when someone in a Suburban attempted to turn left from the right lane at the last moment with out looking. Unfortunately my 1933 Plymouth was in his way. The moron sped off before I could get the license number. Took over $1000 in body work to fix his mistake.

[ply33]

Dave,<P>My Jeep Cherokee mileage is actual measured. Two things going for me: 1) It has a manual overdrive transmission. 2) I have a pretty light foot on the accelerator.<P>When we don't need the carrying capacity, four wheel drive or tow capacity, we generally drive the Toyota Prius. Our mileage on that is not as good as the EPA ratings. We are only getting 40 mpg in town. We do get the rated 44 mpg on the road.

[Guest]

In general, I agree on the SUV/minivan/cellphone issue. There is almost no reason to use an SUV as a daily driver, and almost no reason to use a cellphone in a car. If you're not available, you're not available. Nobody should have to be accessible all the time. And if you need to haul that many people or that much stuff, a minivan should do fine. IMNSHO, SUVs should be specialty vehicles, and specialty vehicles only (a la Range Rover, search & rescue, etc.). People got along just fine before they came along.<P>As for SUV vs minivan, I think that minivan drivers don't tend to feel invincible like SUV drivers do, they just are a little more distracted (kids, etc.) and so still remain a menace on the road. Though not as much as an SUV. If kids would learn to behave, it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. Too bad parents can't punish their children anymore... A timeout or spanking always used to keep me in line.<P>Anyway, where was I? Oh yes...<P>I like the idea of bringing back the full-sized wagon. Maybe with a new image? A new name (station wagon isn't very "cool")? The strong and sleek look, perhaps... Could be good, I don't know. At least I wouldn't have to watch out for giant boxes trying to run me over.

[1937hd45]

Bruce, Since you asked, my daily driver is a 1998 Ford E-350. I can reinstall all the seats and take 15 people to the races or car shows. It hauls all my carpentry tools, and a 1948 MG-TC will fit INSIDE. Try to equal that with any SUV.

[Guest]

My work partner has had two Chevy ZR2 4X4 trucks, a 99 and now a 2002. He has never gotten better than 18 MPG with either truck, and thats CDN gallons. City mileage runs around 14-15 MPG, but he is a bit of a lead foot.<BR>You want good mileage, my 87 Jetta turbo diesel gets 57 HWY, 47 city and I average 825 Km per tank. My wifes 91 non turbo Jetta gets 62 MPG highway and 55 City and she gets over a 1000 Km per tank some times. When I explain to people what that kind of fuel economy is like, I say that some times I forget it even needs fuel. I go for at least a month before fill ups and have to remind myself periodically to check the fuel gauge. I hear the new Jettas get 70 MPG with a 2.0 Litre turbo diesel motor, I want one.<BR>Laserbeam, how about this for a new name for a station wagon, Extreme Sport Caravan. ESC for short, fits in with the Internet computer theme and they could put 50 coffee cup holders in it and sell a million of them.

[Dave@Moon]

1937,<P>If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, the Expedition actually has <I>more</I> interior volume than the E350. Or it might just be a longer load floor. Of course, when you're working with a dump truck chassis..... <P>I'll never forget when Autoweek reported Ford's first testing of the Expedition. They ran it on their humor page, believing it to be a red herring to distract Ford's competators. They refferred to it as Fords uber-SUV. <P>The next week they ran an short blurb explaining that Ford actually believed there was a market for this thing.<P>The sad thing is, Ford was right.

[Guest BruceW]

A full size wagon?? I thought you were talking about using cars that get better gas mielage! Plus, I don't need the expanse of a full size car. The Blazer is big enough for my needs while being smaller than a full size car and I would think more fuel efficient than a full size car.<P>1937HD45,<P>I don't need anything as large as a 15 passenger van, nor to carry cars inside. An E350 van is a LOT bigger than our S10 sized Blazer. I am 5'11" and I can reach the center of the roof on the Blazer to wash it. I have to duck my head to get in. If I remember my 1987 1/2 ton Ford van right, it was a lot taller than my head (I actually stepped up to get in it) and a lot hard to see around than the Blazer. And a 1/2 ton van is not as tall as a 1 ton van. Plus, I don't imagine that an E350 gets 21 mpg very often.<P>If our Blazer makes such a sight problem for anyone traveling behind it, they are obviously driving way too close to be safe. Once I put the Model A on the car trailer, it sticks about 7 feet in the air, well far enough above the roof of the Blazer that the height of the Blazer is inconsequencial.<P>Laserbeam, <BR>The reason for choosing the Blazer over a minivan? The Blazer has a towing capacity of 5000 lb while a typical minivan (such as a Dodge Caravan) has an average towing capacity of about 3000lb. The Model A weighs 2335lb and the trailer is another 1000 lb., plus another 400 lb of people and 50 lbs of gear. Thats past the safe limits of a mini van. Just becaue a vehicle has a 3000 lb towing capacity doesnt mean you can take it to its max limit and be safe.<P><BR>Dave,<P>The mileage is typical for what we get without towing a trailer under optimum conditions. We live in the country so our typical driving is not all interstate.. but its not city stop and going either. One reason for the mileage may be because of the excessive "free wheeling" that the vehicle can do in OD. That is one feature of the vehicle I do not care for. Coming down a hill, I can let off the gas and drift for long distances on the open roads of our area even going up and down some small hills without having to push on the accelerator. Actually on hilly terrain you have to either ride the brake too much or take a wild ride with an accelerating vehicle that sometimes I feel goes beyond being safe. Luckily it doesnt do that in drive and has proven to be a good tow vehicle.<P>Dave I doubt that our Blazer is any longer and probably not much taller.. if any.. than your Ranger. I admit that the sub compact wagon gets much better gas mileage but I have to wonder at what capacity the vehicle is capable of safely towing trailers.<p>[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: BruceW ]

[Dave@Moon]

Ooops, I made a mistake!<P>I accidentally referred to Ford's uber-SUV in the last 2 posts by the wrong name. The "vehicle" (station wagon on dump truck chassis) that I was referring to is the Ford Excursion. <P>The Expedition, of course, is the light-weight, bare-bones, fuel-sipping economy model that no decent person of means would be caught dead in!

[ply33]

Chuck - Heard a tale recently of a fellow that had purchased a Honda Insight hybrid car. This fellow was described as usually being "two sheets to the wind" and not always with it. In any case, apparently the tank of fuel lasted so long he forgot where the filler was. He had to take it to the dealer to have them show him how/where to put gas in it.<p>[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: ply33 ]

[Guest BruceW]

1937HD45,<P>You wanted me to compare your E350 with an SUV so I did. I compared it to our Blazer.<P>1998 E350 Van<BR>Length - 211.9" (17.6 feet)<BR>Width - 79.3" (6.6 feet)<BR>Height - 84.1" (7.03 feet)<BR>Curb weight - 5356 lb<P>1996 Blazer<BR>Length - 181.2" (15.1 feet)<BR>Width - 66.5" (5.5 feet)<BR>Height - 66.9" (5.57 feet)<BR>Curb Weight - 3814lb<P>Its true that you can haul more and tow more (up to 10,000 lbs max) but I do not need all that capability. Why would I want to add 2 1/2 more feet of length, another foot of width, over 1 more foot in height, and over 1500 pounds of dead weight when I do not need it?<P>Because of the posts suggesting the purchase of a full size passenger vehicle, I checked out the 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis, one of the last of the full size cars.<P>2002 Mercury Grand Marquis<BR>Length - 211.9" (17.6 feet)<BR>Width - 78.2" (6.5 feet)<BR>Height - 56.8" (4.73 feet)<BR>Curb weight - 3970 lb<P>The towing capacity of the Grand Marquis is rated at only 2000 pounds. <P>I also checked out the Jetta which Chuck always highly recommends(looked at 2002 model). I personnaly know that Jetta is a very well built vehicle (I used to work at a VW delership in my much younger days). However, under the heading of Towing Capacity, it said "not recommended".<P>Sorry.. but I won't put my family at risk by using an inadequate tow vehicle just to be PC.<P>Dave, out of curiosity, I looked up the Ford Ranger too. You didn't mention the year of your Ranger so I looked for a 2002 Ranger 2WD. Not knowing the exact model, some of the specs are in ranges:<P>2002 Ford Ranger<BR>Length - 187.5 - 202.9" (15.6 to 16.9 feet)<BR>Width - 69.4" (5.7 feet)<BR>Height - 64.9" (5.4 feet)<BR>Curb weight - 3085 - 3641lb<BR>Max tow = 1495 - 4145lb.<P>1996 Blazer<BR>Length - 181.2" (15.1 feet)<BR>Width - 66.5" (5.5 feet)<BR>Height - 66.9" (5.57 feet)<BR>Curb Weight - 3814lb<P><BR>Okay..I conceed that the height of your Ranger is shorter than my Blazer by 2 inches. Lets pray that those concerned about not being able to see over the vehicle in front of them are following you instead of me. <p>[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: BruceW ]

[1937hd45]

Thank you Bruce, I'm sold on vans. This is the third one I've had, 223,000 on the last one. Perfect vehicle for me, dry and secue tools for work, flea market use, and family trips.

[Guest BruceW]

1937hd45<P>I'm not saying anything bad against vans..Ive had a few myself..and if they fit the need great. I was just pointing out that your E350 would be an overkill for my needs.<P>On second thought....with all the bad hype I received on owning an SUV, I wonder if it would be more "acceptable" if I did pull my trailer with a van that is 2 1/2 feet longer, another foot of wider, over 1 foot higher, more than 1500 pounds heavier and got half the gas mileage..... hmmmmm

[Guest BruceW]

DugSin,<P>What are the HID lights you refered to<BR>Are that those real bright bluish headlights a lot of the imports come with?<P>Thanks.

[Guest]

BruceW, I think you are taking this talk a little too seriously. Everyone here is making statements about the general public, not you in particular. <P>I owned a SUV too, a 84 Ford BroncoII. After driving it for 5 years and 100k I sold it and actually almost got what I paid for it, pretty good investment really. But in the end even though I lived 120 kilometers from the nearest city I might have used the four wheel drive 4 times a year. And that was to plow the driveway. I was not sorry to get rid of it because the crosswind stability was terrible here in the prairies and all my driving was on the highway. When I look back I would never buy another one although the waist high hatchback was nice for grocery getting etc. <P>I wish I had more choices for a people hauler than a SUV or a Minivan, with three little ones I certainly need more room. If the big three came out with a nice looking V6 powered, mid size, mid priced wagon that could tow I might buy one, if it had a 3.0 litre diesel 5 speed I might jump at it. SUV's are a craze that is peaking now, if fuel went to $1.00 a litre I would bet there would be a big sell off. Remember your fuel prices in the US are a fraction of what we pay here in Canada, I wonder how many SUV drivers would buy one when they get 15 MPG and it costs 120 dollars to fill it up once a week?<P>For me I am sold on the diesel concept because of the economy, the torque and the fact that tune ups involve changing the oil and filter and cleaning my K@N air filter. No emission controls means no electronics to die on you and no catalytic converter to plug up. The extra heavy duty driveline components also ensure extra long life, for example the brake pads on my Jetta are 1 1/8 inch thick! In Europe diesels outnumber gas cars for good reason, they are cheaper to drive and fill up. The only computer in my diesel is the one in my radio and I like it that way. Mechanical devices are inherently more reliable than any electrical device. <P>Now if we were talking sports cars, well.....Have you guys ever driven a rotary!! The only way I can describe it is as a cross between a 4 stroke and a 2 stroke dirt bike, lots of fun when your coming up on the pipe!! Yaa Hooooo! Crappy gas mileage though. Geez I think I just contradicted myself.