Poorly made American cars?

[Joe Werner]

I was told that american car companies made there cars where out and break easily making people by new cars? what years did they do this? what makes did it the most?

[Mika Jaakkola]

I remember seeing article on Diesel Cadillac (can't remember the year)...

When the guy who had bought one and spent almost twice as much money on repairing it (without getting any benefits from GM) lift the car over a freeway with a crane (he owned a crane company).. It was in the 80's I think? Last year there was a diesel Cadillac? I've heard that those old GM diesel engines were bad..??

Or was this just a joke? A bad american car.. yeah, right...

[Joe Werner]

i didnt mean this as a joke in my history class my teacher said that american car companies made there cars to break for a number of years and i was wondering what years it was. it caused alot of people to buy foriegn made cars personally i think it was cars from late 1970s and from the 1980s?

[R W Burgess]

Well geez Mika, did he drop it or what? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I was visiting an old friend this past weekend talking about old diesels. We were on the subject of the Oliver tractor company making the new diesels back in the early-middle 50's, while still using the old crankshaft and block from the gas engine. Oliver company sold a lot of crankshafts in those days! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Then I reminded him that the Oldsmobile company followed the same route with their "converted" 350 gas engine. Another company got to sell a lot of crankshafts! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> These people sure have short memories or the new engineers are too young to remember the errors of their forebearers. I think all companies have problems with any new technology when first introduced. They want to make sure no one steals their thunder or gets the jump on them. I've owned a lot of new cars, but have been lucky in not owning any lemons. I actually owned two Chevy Vegas, but kept neither long enough to have maintenance problems. Wayne

[Centurion]

Joe, I think that there's some "urban legend" in the comments your teacher made.

Yes, the U.S. automakers probably were guilty of "planned obsolescence", whereby frequent model changes and annual re-styling would make last year's car seem old and obsolete. The automakers were heavily critized for the continuous re-styling, but today's Japanese manufacturers do much the same thing.

It is true that the quality and design of American cars fell to a low point during the later 1970's and early 1980's, but I do not think that there was a deliberate intent to make the cars unreliable so that the vehicles would be quickly replaced. Rather, I think that the poor quality reflected the industry's complacency and desire to cut costs. Obviously, management made a long series of poor product decisions.

[Guest Indiana_Truck]

Being a back yard body man that did this at one time for a living I have seen a lot of bare metal parts in the body of cars where you don't see it without cutting or taking the car apart. I call these spots the rust zone because you can not see it till it comes through the other side and then the car is junk. How many of us are still driving 15 and 20 year old cars that look good? My wifes car is 15 and is parked as soon as the salt hits the road but still is rusting in hidden areas. Drive train is holding up good after 197,000 miles but it had over 100,000 when we bought it 10 years ago and I think had a new engine just before we got it. What is it? 1989 Chevy Cavaler Z 24. Not my faverite car but it gets there and she likes it.

Bob

[DizzyDale]

Read this post and HAD to write in.I have had 4.3 litre Astro vans for work the last 15 years.ALWAYS bought em used with at least 100,000 miles,last one i retired with 350,000 and still running great the rest of the truck just wore out.The current unit a 1997 just turned 260,000 and runs like a new truck.Sure the tie rods and front brakes wear out ,i keep the oil changed every 3,000 and it does not miss a beat.Chevy ought to have it figured out by now all it is,is a 265 from 1955 with 2 cylinders cut off,i just checked the mileage last week,it was 20 right on the button.diz

[Centurion]

Dizzydale, I had to respond to your post. I was sad to learn last week that Astro and Safari production will finally end next summer after a remarkable 20-year run. Evidently, most of the sales are now to commercial customers, and demand for the vans has fallen way off.

Last week, I drove the '99 Safari (that I had ordered new for my wife) on a 750-mile trip, and I remarked a number of times how much I enjoyed driving that vehicle. Ours is the full-lux model with leather seating, etc. It has not missed a beat. At 85,000-miles, I have a long ways to go to match your record, but reports like yours give me confidence that the Safari will remain on the road for many years to come. My wife loves it so much that she was highly disappointed to learn that the model will be discontinued. I suspect that we will see strong demand for these in the used car market for many years to come.

[DizzyDale]

Dear Brian,Gotta believe that if i bought a new one it would last a million miles.Just screwed in a new set of plugs and a wire set after 160,000 and it WASNT even necessary,second set of plugs and wires after 260,000,i was just feelin guilty.GREAT trucks and I am a Early Ford V-8 and Lincoln Zephyr guy.diz

[Guest my3buicks]

I owned an 89 Safari, and it was one of the best vehicles I have owned - it was totaled in an accident with 189K on it

[Guest De Soto Frank]

To get back to Joe's question...

If US automakers are not deliberately incorportating "planned obsolescence" (sp?) into new cars, they are most certainly NOT designing them to be maintained and repaired by the end user (unlike old Henry and the Model T Ford)...

The auto manufacturers are in the business of making and selling new cars...therefore, they have to be careful not to build a car so good and so durable that it ends-up hurting the market for new cars...(sorry if that sounds kind of goofy...)

Detroit ( and Japan) hope that most new car buyers/lessees will be on a two to five year "trade-in/buy new" cycle...they are now offering vehicles with 100,000 mile power train warranties, etc, and generally do produce a product that will exceed the warranty period before any major failures occur; most folks (mostly younger ones - 50 years old & younger) are conditioned to ditch something and buy a new one "before the warranty runs out"...this is far different from my parent's generation ("Children of the Great Depression"), who used something, took care of it, fix it when it broke, and kept using it until is was worn beyond repair...then somebody else usually got hold of it, and somehow made it work again, and so on...

The major things that "kill" new cars are: owner abuse & neglect of regular maintenance (oil changes, chassis lube, etc), and heavily computer-controlled operating and electrical systems that do not age well and wind up sidelining an otherwise viable car...

All major domestic & foreign makes have come a long, long way in the area of corrosion control in the last 20 years...

BUT, the biggest driving factor here is Madison Avenue (1950's slang for the advertising and marketing industry); trying to tell the consumer that they "simply MUST have: newer, bigger, faster, more efficient, more this, more that, blah, blah ,blah..." and folks are "buying it" !

My "favorite"car, my 1941 De Soto, is not the world's most sophisticated, efficient, fastest, or glamorous car; but it was a well-engineered product that WAS designed to last, because it was made in an era when purchases such as cars were major investments, and buyers expected a product to last. My De Soto has certainly fulfilled that expectation...at 64 years and nearly 98,000 miles, it is smoking, and knocking, and rusting, but with minimal effort on my part, the car starts and runs, and get's me "there and back" every time I slide behind the steering wheel...

My love afffair with old vehicles for daily transport probably doesn't make Detroit happy, but I really can't justify signing a loan agreement for $25,000 - $45,000 for a "new" car or truck comparable to the 35+ year-old buggys that I presently own and drive and that meet my needs just fine, thank you...

So, now that you've heard from "the lunatic fringe"...we'll what others have to say...

(OH, my all-time BEST car was my first driver: a 1962 Ford Falcon "deluxe" 4-dr sedan. Ford's compact, "disposable" car; I bought mine in 1984, with 189,000 miles on it...I drove it to high school and college, and might still be driving it to this daym, if it weren't for an unpleasant meeting with a '78 Buick Regal...I still drove it another 10,000 miles after the Buick incident!)

[Pontiac59]

I've seen some S10s do the same milage, 300,000+ on that 4.3 - my friend bought one for $50 that had something like $53 in money laying inside it, and got about 10,000 miles out before it threw a rod at 310K. But then when my mom needed a car quick my dad got her a used work pickup from his company - a '95 fullsize Chevy. It has 278K on it and handles like new. It's why when I had the chance to get an '89 Suburban with advertised 57,000 miles I nabbed it, the TBI 350 will probably outlive the body as with the rust in it by the time I wear out this set of brakes it will probably be junk. I'm thinking about getting a short box and the rear wall from a pickup cab and just cutting the back off when the time comes - sort of a home-made extended cab, which they didn't make in this body style.

I've heard of Dodge trucks also running 350,000 miles, the 225, 318 and 360 are good motors. But they did cheapen up the rustproofing on a lot of cars in the '70's. Try and find a '72 Pontiac trunk lid that is not rotted out at the corners or between the taillights where it sticks down. I have one that is just starting to go through and from the looks of it they did not paint the insides of it, just what you can see when you open it.

From what I can see, there was a period in the mid to late 1970s where quality is spotty and as they tried to cut back they made cars that have the potential to fail. The 301 Pontiac motor for example can't be rebored because it's a thinwall casting. Once it's worn out it's done. My '84 Skylark, which is all 1970's design, runs great at 115K but the rear main seal leaks pretty badly. But some of these cars run and last a long time.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Planned obsolecence: From the beginning to present. it never stops. However, the time period that you were told about in terms of 'poor quality' is about 1970 thru 1985 more or less. But, this must also be understood in its own right.

The American automobile PRIOR to the so-called 'oil crisis' of circa 1975 was by and large just a passive evolution of industry left overs from the horse power revolution of 1955. Or, to put it another way, the automobile (American et-al) saw relatively no change from 1955 thru 1975 or even 1980. The only difference was that they continued to cheapen up the materials used in the car. Prior to the Japanese auto invasion circa 1975 the American auto companies had NO other competition and could get aweay with making the car cheaper with little or no innovation or improvements over that of 1955 models. ... More later, i gotta run.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was told that american car companies made there cars where out and break easily making people by new cars? what years did they do this? what makes did it the most? </div></div>

A lot of people assume that there is a conspiracy among automakers to make cars wear out, but there's no proof. It's an urban legend that has the status of the mysterious 100-MPG carburetor and the oil company conspiracy that killed the inventor. If it were common knowledge of when and who may have intentionally built cars designed to break, you can bet there would be a massive class-action suit big enough to sink the biggest car company. It's just a myth, though the lousy quality during the 70s and 80s certainly made such myths very believeable.

The closest you'll come to any kind of admission is GM's recent "Road to Redemption" ad campaign where GM essentially said, <span style="font-style: italic">"We used to make crappy cars, we're sorry if you bought one, please come back and try again, we're better now."</span> They pulled it pretty quickly when they realized how stupid it was.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is true that the quality and design of American cars fell to a low point during the later 1970's and early 1980's, but I do not think that there was a deliberate intent to make the cars unreliable so that the vehicles would be quickly replaced. Rather, I think that the poor quality reflected the industry's complacency and desire to cut costs. </div></div>

From <span style="font-style: italic">Buick 1946-1978, The Postwar Years</span> by Jan Norbye & Jim Dunne (p.41):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:\\"brown\\"] From having had one of the poorest, if not the absolute worst, brake systems in the industry, Buick </span></span> (in 1958) <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:\\"brown\\"] suddenly had the best by far. </span> "By 1960"<span style="font-style: italic"> recalls </span> </span>(Buick chassis engineer)<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:\\"brown\\"] Frank Daley, </span>"I finally caught hell from somebody because we had a group of cars that would consistently go over 100.000 miles before they needed any consideration for brakes."</span>... </div></div>

I understand from articles in <span style="font-style: italic">Collectible Automobile</span> and at least one other magazine that "caught hell" included actual demotions of responsible individuals in the Buick engineering staff due to unrest among the dealer organization over lost brake job revenues. (Mr. Daley left Buick in 1964 to work for Delco-Moraine.) When the (ave. 100 lbs. heavier per model) 1961 Buicks were introduced all four brake shoes were 1/4" narrower. The dealers were happy. Soon they were getting happier and happier.

I think everyone can relate similar "engineering revisions" that were made to their favorite marque (Corvair suspensions, Ford cooling systems, AMC & Mopar body integrity, plastic Cadillac grilles, etc.).

The seeds for the "Japanese invasion" were sewn long before the 1970's. They were sewn deliberately and with malice, not complacency.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

The Auto industry, especialy since the mid 20's, is clearly a phenomenon of massive proportions that is unmatched. An entity that has impacted society as well as the world that no other event, events nor concepts all taken together could match.

Most analysis of the auto industry by the so-called 'experts' is usually jsut a perception taken from an isolated point of reference.

Colusion is a fact of life and of business.

[Mika Jaakkola]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well geez Mika, did he drop it or what?

Wayne </div></div>

Oh.. My post wasn't finished.. The story goes, that This guy had an enormous signs

hanging from a car that said " Want car trouble? Buy a diesel Cadillac".

They showed the car in evening news that had 10 000's viewers and after that GM contacted him and thraded the diesel for fuel engine or something like that..

I'll have to find that article somewhere.. It was really quite funny..

Then there was also that next year there was no diesel Cadillac anymore and tey were wondering if this masterstroke had anything to do with it...

Here's our (my and my brother's) 1985 Pontiac Parisienne Safari STW:

Well.. previuos owner treated it little bit bad, but the body is almost rust free, and the car works ok.. We have had it about a year and only repairs

has been a water pump, front wheel bearing and rear brakes, which were alread gone when we got the car.

It looks a little rough, but drives well!

[Restorer32]

For what it's worth, the factory recommended maintenance on a Rolls-Royce Corniche averages out to about $6000/year. Maybe it wasn't that we built crappy cars but that the maintenance schedules were inadequate.

[Guest 1959olds]

In my opinion the problem for the 70's cars was caused by the "Clean Air Act". First the government said Detroit must comply and lower the emissions, so they re-engineered their engines available at the time to pass. The result? Lousy gas mileage. Then we hit the oil crisis and these bad fuel rated cars were overtaken by what the Japanese had to offer, lightweight, fuel squeezer offerings. The Americans did what they could, they started throwing lighter and lighter componets into the cars. Remeber the good ole' days when a spare matched the the tires on the car? Instead we were given what we referred to as "motorcycle spares", the cardboard covered most of the area in the trunk where the full sized spare used to go.

My job is in the auto manufacture related field now, and the biggest problem I see is the "Total Car" concept in design. In the old days, the cars were designed as a team effort at usually one facility. Not now, a plant from 5 states away is told to design the fuel rail assemblies, and are told "you have this many square inch area allowed to you to make it fit". No thought is given to the poor mechanic down the road that has to replace the part below it, just make sure it fits in the area alloted. We, as a whole, are not capable now of even working on our cars under the shade tree as in years past because of all the computer and electric gadgets we now live with. An article I read months ago by a Visteon Designer stated that the American car is now "maxed-out" on it's electrical capabilities because of all the creature comforts and controls we have. He stated further that their new project is how to come up with a two battery system but still keep the weight factor down. Won't that be fun to maintain?

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> An article I read months ago by a Visteon Designer stated that the American car is now "maxed-out" on it's electrical capabilities because of all the creature comforts and controls we have. He stated further that their new project is how to come up with a two battery system but still keep the weight factor down. Won't that be fun to maintain? </div></div>

42-volt systems are on the horizon. Several companies already have them running around in Europe. We'll see them shortly as more electonics creep into our cars.

I'd argue that the electronics are the deciding factor in reliablity today. When was the last time you heard of a modern car spinning a bearing or needing a valve job? No, the death of a modern car is always electrical. I wonder what restorers 50 years hence will do in restoring some of today's cars. It isn't like you can whip up one of those little black boxes in a machine shop or find a suitable substitute like you can on an older car.

And do we really need to surf the Internet or watch a DVD while we drive? Radio--fine. But if you're piloting a 4000-pound chunk of steel at 60+ MPH only 2 feet off-line from a similar projectile traveling in the opposite direction, do you really need to be checking your E-mail?

/BMW I-drive is the worst invention ever.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

As for cars makers having their engineers "design by remote control"....

I just had the pleasure last Saturday of replacing the alternator on my "new" car: 1993 Ford Escort GT, with 1.8 litre engine...now this buggy has PS, PB, A/C, Fuel injection, etc.

I consulted my trusty Haynes manual for testing proceedures (to verify that the alternator was indeed the culprit), and then proceedure for Removal / Re-installation. The fine folks at Haynes (usually pretty accurate) suggested the once the alternator adjusting bolt and mounting bolt were removed and the wiring disconnected from the unit, that the next step was to jack-up the car, remove the splash shields from the right side of the chassis, and "work the alternator over the drive axle, and out of the car"...

Well, I tried "working the alternator down and out" for nearly an hour and a half!

Trying to go to the rear of the drive axle resulted in binding between the drive axle and the steering rack; going to the front side of the drive axle wasn't an option, as there was not a big enough hole through the lower control arm & front suspension. I even unbolted the drive axle carrier bearing, trying to get enough clearance...

All the finagling, persuading, tapestry of obscenity, etc. failed to get the alternator out of the car the way the book recommended.

I finally had to go top-side and remove a bunch of vacuum hoses, plastic canisters, and other emissions/fuel-injection/ "engine-management" garbage (praying that 11 year-old plastic "Tees" and other connectors didn't break!)

to open-up a hole to pull the thign out topside...

Now, here's the beauty-part: rebuilt alternator from my trusty jobber: $150 plus an $80 core-charge; lifetime warranty.

Earlier this fall, I had a charging system problem with my 1972 Chevy truck (35 amp Delcotron w/external regulator)...I narrowed the problem down to either the alternator or the regulator...I bought both; a rebuilt alternator was $29.95 (lifetime warranty), the regualtor was $35...

The problem turned-out to be the regulator; the new alternator is sitting on a shelf in my garage waiting for its turn...

Back to the Excort: nobody gave a thought to changing "accessories" such as starters, alternators, a/c compressors, etc. when they designed this car; they bolted all these things to the engine, then dropped the whole deal into the engine-bay...nice 'n'easy when you're doing things that way...

And, it's lasted six years past the "planned trade-in" mark...at 163,000 miles, I plan on keeping and driving it till the body falls apart or until I start having more electronix problems than I feel like coping with.

But I HATE working on this car because of the way it's put together...

Once again: Detroit (representing all car makers, workd-wide) doesn't WANT us owners working on these things....they don't WANT us to keep their "new" cars running for 10 or 20 years...and most newer car owners are content to "never have to open the hood"...

And another word about the "good old days"...apparently Chrysler Corporation had some "quality control issues" around the 1957 model year...lots of issues with fit & finish, also with body rust...and Studebaker and Willys were both terribly prone to body cancer with their post-war products...

Here's a mantra for the shade tree mechanic: "Keep it simple, keep it running."

[poci1957]

Hello Joe, as some have said, your teacher is referring partly to "planned obsolescence", which was to a degree planned almost from the beginning of the industry. The whole idea is credited to GM in the 1920's when they hatched the annual model change, which president Alfred Sloan said was designed to create a mild dissatisfaction with the old car and a longing for the new updated model. The concept reached it's zenith in the 1950s and continued into the 1970s. This rapid changing of bodies and appearance resulted in body quality issues like the mentioned unpainted inner panels, with the idea that the original owner would replace the car in 3-5 years anyway, so durability here was not considered a big issue (it should be noted import cars had very poor rust resistance themselves into the 1980's). However, basic mechanicals were often used for years and usually held up reasonably well (although some cost cutting undoubtably went on). It would, after all, be hard to bring customers back if they had a truly bad car. Although quality was criticized as early as the 1950's (The Insolent Chariot) the big quality problem hit in the 1970's, when models were actually carried over much longer, but there were more different ones and they had new emmission controls, electronic features and other updates that had lots of "bugs" and made for some very poor quality cars. This was where Detroit really lost a lot of credibility, but it was not all due to the superficial annual model change as much as increased complexity with more different cars models and more parts in each. Through the 1980's and 1990's Detroit made it a point to reduce the number of parts in each car and thus (theoretically) simplify assembly, service, and model changeovers when they did occur, all influenced for the better by the Japanese and VW. There are many angles to all these points, but this, I think, is the question you were asking. Best wishes, Todd C

[Guest bkazmer]

Buick did put in finned drums in this era, but other people were offering discs by then so I'd hardly called their brakes leading design.

[Twitch]

Joe all the auto longevity stories are fine and I have some too but that's not what you are asking. The honest mechanics I've have known over time have agreed that planned obsolesence is a definite concept in cars. It has been for a long time.

Somewhere from about 1975-80 things changed even more. Before then auto makers' lines used generally the same components throughout the spectrum of their cars. An alternator, water pump, starter, or air conditioner compressor was the exact same when applied to several sub-models that used the same basic engine block. That doesn't mean the same cubic inch displacement though.

From then it spread to myriad components specifically tailored to a specific car and engine. Ten cars in a manufacturers' line up? Probably 8 different component groups. This soon held true for transmissions and differentials and more.

A new, singular alternator may have one application only. This has a couple effects. It has no history on earlier cars so it is not proven with time and miles. It costs much more since the manufacturer is buying or producing far fewer than in previous automotive eras. Mass production lowers costs and many components are produced in far fewer units than before. Components can be difficult to obtain even from the dealer who can't stock as many parts as he once did due to the vast diversity.

At about this time the 'world car' was touted as being the wave of the future. Engines built in Japan would be mated with transmissions made in Belgium and assembled on a platform built in Detroit. And manufacturers would also have cars that would transcend national borders in sales appeal. Before cars were conceived for all the various demographic regions of the world and built 100,000 each of ten vehicles comes out more costly than building 1,000,000 of one car.

Before about the mid 1970s engines, transmissions, differentials, starters, alternators, water pumps, A/C compressors and even carburetors to a great extent were not only interchangeable amongst different models of one brand, they interchanged amongst the corporations' other brands.

When you have the same basic starter that has been used in many models for a decade you pretty much know its strengths. When you use a starter that is new and specifically made to fit one car you lose that generational data. And then the same model car is nowadays more likely to change engines/starters etc. to something completely different in 3 years time. There was a time when engines and components were trace-able back like 15 years for interchangeability amongst several car models of one brand.

In 1975 the insurance industry began sqeezing the auto makers for lower horsepower. We went through that before but this time cars really began to suck. 1980s cars were underpowered and seemingly lower quality over all coupled with quirky components from all over the place. This made for lousy cars. They were 100,000-mile cars. As any mechanic would tell you at that mileage there was nothing worth rebuilding. Emmissions controls multiplied and became more complex.

This was coupled with the fact that the industry went to FWD- front wheel drive nearly completely at that time. It saved some money on drive line components and made the interior space more usaable. The downside was a motive package that was basically untried over the long term and extremely complicated to access for service in that the engines are transverse mounted. Where an alternator was a user do-able change before it was now often impossible or supre labor intensive. Rates for what was before standard and reasonable labor time now soar to bizarre levels due to the time needed to access the most basic components on the car.

So while since the mid-1990s cars have better overall quality they still require ridiculous amounts of time to service equaling $$$ to be paid and with the safety equipment and emmissions controls factored in the complexity of simple analysis before anyone even turns a wrench is a set back.

With that in mind I personally feel we still have cars that break easily. Not catastrophic engine failures but ongoing barbs like vague computer messages about a minor hiccup in some sub-system that is not at all easilly detectable when taken for service. A tiny relay faults out somewhere and plays havoc with driveability. These things are costly these days to diagnose and repair. And an individual sensor can cost $250 or more so they are expensive.

How much of this was purposeful on the part of auto makers to produce easily breakable cars is anyone's guess. The complexity of cars is at its zenith today. It all began in the 1980s with government mandated safety and emissions laws becoming more stringent and companies hustling to make a buck.

[Mika Jaakkola]

OK, 70's/80's American cars were poorer in quality than usual.. But what would been a good substitute for an American built automobile?

in 1979 Chrysler released a 300 -model, that looked like this:

in 1979 Honda released a Civic -model that looked like this one:

OK, maybe this were not aimed at the same market, but anyway.. Just an example... That we know what the other auto makers offered...

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OK, 70's/80's American cars were poorer in quality than usual.. But what would been a good substitute for an American built automobile? </div></div>

I guess it woud depend on how far you had to walk home that night (an answer that only a former 1976 Mopar owner could give! ..and no, it won't happen just <span style="font-style: italic">once!</span>).

Anybody out there happen to have a 1985 NADA book out there who can look up the resale values of '79 Chrysler 300's and Honda Civics. For even more fun toss in direct competitors like the Dodge Aspen and Honda Accord. A survival rate by 1990 might make for some interesting observations as well!

[DizzyDale]

Dear Twitch,"There is no substitute for cubic inches".My guess is you never rode in a Buick Grand National.diz

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

I am a design engineer and currently work for a company that produces a commonly used consumer good. We don't have planned obsolescence, but we do have an expected life of our product. When we design a new part, we test it to see if it will last the expected life of the product. If it does, great, we implement it. If it doesn't, we fix it where it will. We also continuously look for ways to cut costs. If we have an expensive part that we see we could take some money out of, we will give it a try. It will be tested. If it doesn't last as long as the old part, but still exceeds the expected life, we will implemement the change. That's not planned obsolescence. It's just good business. To my knowledge, the expected life has never been reduced. How anyone came up with it is beyond me, but it is a benchmark that we shoot for, but don't try to overshoot by any large amount, because that is only wasting money.

[Mrbuick714]

If a country is worth living in,it is worth patronizing!

[Guest]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a country is worth living in,it is worth patronizing! </div></div>

In Canada that would now include Mercedes Benz(Daimler Chrysler), Honda, Saab (now owned by GM )Hyundai, Suzuki and Volvo (now owned by Ford but also assembled in Nova Scotia) )as well as the big three . Doesn't the US also have BMW, Toyota, Mercedes Benz,Mishubishi, Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen assembly plants ? Rolls Royce had a plant in the US at one time also so does that count. Did I miss any...Yugo? Trabant?...Kia?

[Guest]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dear Twitch,"There is no substitute for cubic inches".My guess is you never rode in a Buick Grand National.diz </div></div>

Or a Honda SiR

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Hal,

Your remarks make good business sense...

Along those lines I will relate the story behind a certain consumer product: the G.E. "Monitor-top" refrigerator. This was one of the first refrigerators designed for home use, introduced in 1927.

G.E. wanted to be sure that there would be no "introductory bugs" that would cause the consumer at large to condemn the new technology, so (supposedly), G.E. designed these machines to have a minimum 25-year service life in the field.

Many of the remaining "Monitor-tops" (made from 1927 to 1938) are still in operating condition...I happen to own two of them - a 1930 sulfur--dioxide model and a 1933 methyl-formate model (referring to types of refrigerant employed).

One thing that I believe has changed conceptually in terms of design and manufacturing is that products seem to be less & less made to be serviced & repaired...

There are probably "sound" economic reasons for going this way, but there are those of us "cranks" who'd like to option to try and repair a widget that we spent hard-earned $$$ for instead of having to chuck it and buy new...

I guess it's time for another ride in the "way-back machine"...set the controls for "the good old days", Sherman...

[Twitch]

Ok, OK guys. 'There is no substitute for cubic inches' is probably the only automotive term that is un-argue-able. The quote is lost to time as to who first said it. It was a hot rodder, perhaps, looking for more power, I don't know.

We have a 150ci pushrod engine developing 120HP. We have a 283ci pushrod engine putting out 250HP. So a wise guy puts a DOHC, blower, fuel injection, magneto on the little engine and it cranks out 300HP! All that compensates for the cubic inches of the big engine so the little engine wins, right? But things are not equal. We perform the same modifications on our big engine and develop 550HP. THAT'S what the quote is about.

There is simply no way to have 2 equally engineered engines- one large and one small- put out equal power= HP and torque. Doesn't change in application either. If you have two duplicate 2500-lb. cars with the same gear ratio and final drive the 250HP car will beat the 120HP car, will it not?

I figure you guys meant that tongue-in-cheek but you never know!

[Guest bkazmer]

it's a little more complicated than that - acceleration is more related to torque at the relevant rpm range, top speed to power vs. aerodynamic and other drag. And in both cases, divided by the mass, so as Colin Chapman said "add lightness."

[Guest 1959olds]

ok, we've talked quality,design, horespower, etc. Now let's talk the price. I have the original bill of sale of my 40' Olds off the showroom floor,$837. Go further to 1970 when my sis bought a new Maverick, $1999. Thats only $1162 in 30 years. Go 30 more years to 2000. I bought a new model 1999 Firebird for $18,600!! Am I confused or has the math changed?

[Twitch]

Talkin about 2 IDENTICAL cars- one has 250HP and one has 120HP. As for engines alone there is no way possible for 2 engines equal, save for displacement differences, for the smaller one to out produce the larger one! I'll even go one further- a 283ci vs a heavier car allowing for a 427ci weight. Given that both cars hook up and have manageable tire spin the 427 will smear the 283 after 1320 feet...always.

When did a Lotus with a 1.5-2.5 liter Coventry Climax ever produce more HP than an equally aspirated 427ci Ford in a Cobra or GT-40? Maybe in some Twilight Zone episode. The absolute cheapest and easiest way to produce more HP is more cubic inches. Simple formula- A larger displacement engine will produce more power than an equal, smaller displacement one always, always, always.

[Twitch]

59 Olds- we can attribute most all that to 2 simple causes- 1. safety 2. emissions. As the zealots push to have zero everything the percentages closer and closer to 100% perfect get more and more costly. If we let these fruitcakes go we'll be driving nerf-mobiles so we can just mindlessly giggle when we bounce off one another's cars. All the cows will have catalytic converters attached to their butts and the fuel for your nerf-mobile will cost so much you'll pray to Satan for cheap $2.50 gasoline again.

Its a brave new, politically correct world we're closing in on.

[Dave@Moon]

According to the Inflation Calculator:

The $837 1940 Olds equals $10.601.39 in 2003. The $1999 Maverick in 1970 equals $9585.56 in 2003.

The math hasn't changed. You're looking at the logarithmic acceleration of inflation over time. It's the same reason why savings accounts grow when started early enough in life (i.e. compounded interest). Given the fantastically added content in today's cars relative to the Olds and Maverick examples, not to mention the much longer service life that cars have gained since (but not before) 1980, the prices are quite reasonable today.

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Frank,

You are absolutely right about not being made to work on. Most things nowadays are designed for assembly. In industry, they call it DFA. There is also DFM, design for manufacturability. Sometimes this works out for the end user, sometimes not, but repair and maintenance take a backseat to reducing the cost of manufacture. Now I suppose one could make the case that reducing manufacturing costs saves the consumer money, but I'm willing to bet that in most cases, if the consumer is already happily paying the price and the manufacturer finds a way to cut costs, the difference goes into his pocket (and his stockholder's), rather than being passed on to the customer. Again, it's just the way business is run.

[Guest bkazmer]

the easiest way to improve acceleration is to cut weight.

the cheapest way is to add power via displacement.

the hardest way is to improve design efficiency.

so what you do often depends on your resources and priorities. I reckon that's the fun part for many of us

displacement "always" works only at equal technology. A 1975 smogged out 350 V8 (5.7 liter) produces less power than a modern 2 liter I4.