What is better made, or more useable, now than in the years past?
- Thread starter RicinYakima
- Start date
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
It has to be 96 or earlier to have 300 six, right? Can't be nearly as complex as later models.
OBD 2 started in 96, so will likely be OBD-1. Isn't that the ones where jumper
something under the hood to get it to flash codes on a dash light? A friend
had an old Chrysler that did that, told him the throttle body was bad, and with
a rebuilt throttle body, was back in business. I have never really fooled with OBD-1
vehicles much.
Seems like at least some info should come from codes. Or not?
Bill
OBD 2 started in 96, so will likely be OBD-1. Isn't that the ones where jumper
something under the hood to get it to flash codes on a dash light? A friend
had an old Chrysler that did that, told him the throttle body was bad, and with
a rebuilt throttle body, was back in business. I have never really fooled with OBD-1
vehicles much.
Seems like at least some info should come from codes. Or not?
Bill
I had one - a 300-six, in a 76 F150, short-bed, "three on the tree." Had a whopping 60k miles on it and the engine was great, but every time I drove it, I had to replace some peripheral component - solenoid, starter, fuel pump, master cylinder, EGR valve,.... HUGE hassle getting the right parts. I think the worst complication was the air pump, which was tied up and all the lines were cut/pinched shut.
I have a soft spot for straight sixes and that one was a gem. Had maybe 120 - 150 HP(?), but was torquey in the low end. Ever drop the shifter into first and figure out it was really in third when you start to leave a stop sign? Punch the clutch and a quick flick of the wrist to get back to first, but in this truck, it didn't matter. You could start from a dead stop in third gear without any problem. No hesitation or stuttering, just a smooth, easy acceleration up to speed without shifting.
I have a soft spot for straight sixes and that one was a gem. Had maybe 120 - 150 HP(?), but was torquey in the low end. Ever drop the shifter into first and figure out it was really in third when you start to leave a stop sign? Punch the clutch and a quick flick of the wrist to get back to first, but in this truck, it didn't matter. You could start from a dead stop in third gear without any problem. No hesitation or stuttering, just a smooth, easy acceleration up to speed without shifting.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Come on Bill, you don't think those super clever Germans coulda figured out how to add a hydraulic lifter to a Bug engine over 30 some years? Even stodgy old Case figured out how to add spin on oil filters and 12v systems over a 12 year period. They didn't add hyd lifters because it was their choice, it was a money maker. I know some folks loved them, more power to them. I'll pass.
Hawk
Well-Known Member
My wife had a 1967 VW Beetle named Timothy.
I worked on that car ALOT.
My advise to her was "Drive it like you're mad at it". Had to drive it hard to make sure the fan kept to engine cool.
Engine gave out in the early '80s and we bought her a Buick, that she just had to have.
I got a used engine from the junk yard/ salvage yard, stripped the body off of the VW and made a go cart type steel framed buggy for the deer lease. Finally sold it to a deer lease buddy.
I worked on that car ALOT.
My advise to her was "Drive it like you're mad at it". Had to drive it hard to make sure the fan kept to engine cool.
Engine gave out in the early '80s and we bought her a Buick, that she just had to have.
I got a used engine from the junk yard/ salvage yard, stripped the body off of the VW and made a go cart type steel framed buggy for the deer lease. Finally sold it to a deer lease buddy.
Last edited:
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
It was an inexpensive car. Heck they stuck with the old 6V system until 1966. I know they
could have added it, but there is a strong streak of "ve haf alvays done it diss vay, it is goot!'
in Germans, too. They had good traction in snow, cost very little to buy and maintain, if you
did your own work. But by the 70s and 80s they were a very dated design, and VW was not
really improving them at all. A neighbor had a Mercedes sedan in the 60s, about a 65 or 66
model, 4 cyl engine. IIRC, it still had mechanical lifters, too.
I switched away from Vws in the 80s, could afford to buy my very first new car - a Honda.
Been primarily driving Hondas ever since, although I have an F-150 and a 4Runner for
their specific capabilities. Unfortunately, Honda has become addicted to damnable turbochargers.
Cannot buy an Accord without one. If they are still like that when my current Accord needs replacement,
I'll be going to some other brand. I will NOT own a turbocharged car if there are any other choices.
Bill
could have added it, but there is a strong streak of "ve haf alvays done it diss vay, it is goot!'
in Germans, too. They had good traction in snow, cost very little to buy and maintain, if you
did your own work. But by the 70s and 80s they were a very dated design, and VW was not
really improving them at all. A neighbor had a Mercedes sedan in the 60s, about a 65 or 66
model, 4 cyl engine. IIRC, it still had mechanical lifters, too.
I switched away from Vws in the 80s, could afford to buy my very first new car - a Honda.
Been primarily driving Hondas ever since, although I have an F-150 and a 4Runner for
their specific capabilities. Unfortunately, Honda has become addicted to damnable turbochargers.
Cannot buy an Accord without one. If they are still like that when my current Accord needs replacement,
I'll be going to some other brand. I will NOT own a turbocharged car if there are any other choices.
Bill
Ian
Notorious member
Why is that?
There was a dragster class for the VW long ago, biggest change was replacing crank with one with 8 bolts. Of course the fan was not there & they put bigger jugs on them. IIRC, 11sec & 195 or so. Had a gal with stock 6 Stude that always took F gas at the old KC strip. P1(?) was first FI for VW
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
A $1,000 piece of entirely unnecessary equipment that will NOT last to the normal life of the
engine?
The trick Honda did is to reduce the displacement of their engines and add a turbo, intercooler, wastegate,
miles of plumbing, making access far worse, to make up the lost performance. Expensive to build, complex, and a
LOT more stuff to go wrong. And you can get detonation, the limits of boosting of spark ignition engines make me
entirely uninterested in ever owning one. Some of it is anger at the Feds for mandating ever higher fuel economy,
making cars ever more expensive, complex and unreliable. IMO, once we get to about 30-40 mpg (my current
Accord will get 42 mpg on the highway at 65 mph cruise) the added fuel savings from higher fuel economy are
ridiculously small, entirely uneconomic.
At 35 mpg, my normal tank average is that or a bit more, I burn $285 gallons for 10,000 miles, a common benchmark for
a year of average driving. I know many drive more, this is just an example. If the car's fuel economy is increased
to 50 mpg, the fuel burn for 10,000 miles drops to 200 gallons. Current gas prices are just under $2/gallon.
So, to save $170 PER YEAR, $15/month. Why would I want to have a more complex car which WILL puke the turbo or some
other very expensive part well before the engine is worn out to save $15/month? Makes zero sense to me, and I really
reject the damned feds telling me what kind of car I need to buy "for my own good".
The only engines where I would maybe buy a turbo is a diesel, where unlimited blowing is possible, detonation not
an issue. The substantial increases in efficiency in a diesel MAY offset the cost of the turbo and associated plumbing
and intercooler, etc. Maybe, not entirely convinced even for a diesel, for me. Makes perfect sense for semis in comm service.
IMO, a turbo on a gasoline car just means you made the engine too damned small.
Reread: had calculated wrong, it is only $170/year savings.
Bill
engine?
The trick Honda did is to reduce the displacement of their engines and add a turbo, intercooler, wastegate,
miles of plumbing, making access far worse, to make up the lost performance. Expensive to build, complex, and a
LOT more stuff to go wrong. And you can get detonation, the limits of boosting of spark ignition engines make me
entirely uninterested in ever owning one. Some of it is anger at the Feds for mandating ever higher fuel economy,
making cars ever more expensive, complex and unreliable. IMO, once we get to about 30-40 mpg (my current
Accord will get 42 mpg on the highway at 65 mph cruise) the added fuel savings from higher fuel economy are
ridiculously small, entirely uneconomic.
At 35 mpg, my normal tank average is that or a bit more, I burn $285 gallons for 10,000 miles, a common benchmark for
a year of average driving. I know many drive more, this is just an example. If the car's fuel economy is increased
to 50 mpg, the fuel burn for 10,000 miles drops to 200 gallons. Current gas prices are just under $2/gallon.
So, to save $170 PER YEAR, $15/month. Why would I want to have a more complex car which WILL puke the turbo or some
other very expensive part well before the engine is worn out to save $15/month? Makes zero sense to me, and I really
reject the damned feds telling me what kind of car I need to buy "for my own good".
The only engines where I would maybe buy a turbo is a diesel, where unlimited blowing is possible, detonation not
an issue. The substantial increases in efficiency in a diesel MAY offset the cost of the turbo and associated plumbing
and intercooler, etc. Maybe, not entirely convinced even for a diesel, for me. Makes perfect sense for semis in comm service.
IMO, a turbo on a gasoline car just means you made the engine too damned small.
Reread: had calculated wrong, it is only $170/year savings.
Bill
Last edited:
Verticle fan Vws were oil cooled, not air cooled. Therefore they used mechanical lifters as the oil viscosity couldn't handle the high temp variations. Ford 6 had a problem wearing out rocker tubes. I had a 250 (144) block before the Aussie version, ran great. Fleet owners added a copper tube to the 6's to get upper lube. Like Chrysler, most ford motors were truck blocks with 289 heads, until the last 70's. Interestingly, Chevy had a working overhead valve aluminum V8 engine in 1917! Biggest turbo problem now is drivers don't let them cool before turning the motor off. And using the 'eco' setting on the trans. Lugs them in traffic and wears out the rings. Rings are the biggest problem in diesels due to truckers lugging them.
Last edited:
fiver
Well-Known Member
see^^^ you need 2 turbo's.
I have a supercharger on the mustang I really kicked around whether to put a by pass type rousch blower system in or a gear/belt driven pro-charger.
I opted for the pro-charger to save some weight, and the fact that it increases boost as the rpm's go up is a real selling point.
if I just roll with it the torque of the engine does most of the work even pulling the mountain passes and such I don't have to rely on the boost to kill my fuel mileage.
I'm pretty okay rolling around in a car that size, with that much HP, and still getting real close to 30 mpg.
mostly because I still look good doing it...LOL
I have a supercharger on the mustang I really kicked around whether to put a by pass type rousch blower system in or a gear/belt driven pro-charger.
I opted for the pro-charger to save some weight, and the fact that it increases boost as the rpm's go up is a real selling point.
if I just roll with it the torque of the engine does most of the work even pulling the mountain passes and such I don't have to rely on the boost to kill my fuel mileage.
I'm pretty okay rolling around in a car that size, with that much HP, and still getting real close to 30 mpg.
mostly because I still look good doing it...LOL
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
If I lived in Wyoming, always at 7000 MSL, a turbo would make some sense, perhaps.
I have been contacted by Porsche, offering to trade in my current 6 cyl normally aspirated Caymen
for a new 4 cylinder turbocharged Cayman. Not a chance. Same reasons, on steroids going from the
glassy smooth Porsche flat six to a flat four, too. Same root cause, not because it is better, but because
the feds are forcing increased gas mileage. Looks like those regs are about to be dumped, hope it
really happens.
On a racing car, a turbo is fine, expected short life. On an aircraft - maybe a turbo is good, if you plan
on flying quite high. On a diesel, it can make sense, more power and torque, and no risk of detonation.
Rick, I can see it for big semitrucks for sure. They are driving maybe 400K or more per year, and fuel cost
is a giant part of whether they can make a profit, so the better fuel economy for them makes solid economic
sense. And they chose it because it made sense for them, not because some bureaucrat forced them.
On an ordinary family sedan......I just can't see it. Makes no economic sense to me. Drop the turbo, go back to the
2 liter 4 valve, direct injection engine I am currently driving. Very fuel efficient, very reliable, great torque and actually
fairly simple, in a modern way. And get the feds off my back, out of my wallet.
Bill
I have been contacted by Porsche, offering to trade in my current 6 cyl normally aspirated Caymen
for a new 4 cylinder turbocharged Cayman. Not a chance. Same reasons, on steroids going from the
glassy smooth Porsche flat six to a flat four, too. Same root cause, not because it is better, but because
the feds are forcing increased gas mileage. Looks like those regs are about to be dumped, hope it
really happens.
On a racing car, a turbo is fine, expected short life. On an aircraft - maybe a turbo is good, if you plan
on flying quite high. On a diesel, it can make sense, more power and torque, and no risk of detonation.
Rick, I can see it for big semitrucks for sure. They are driving maybe 400K or more per year, and fuel cost
is a giant part of whether they can make a profit, so the better fuel economy for them makes solid economic
sense. And they chose it because it made sense for them, not because some bureaucrat forced them.
On an ordinary family sedan......I just can't see it. Makes no economic sense to me. Drop the turbo, go back to the
2 liter 4 valve, direct injection engine I am currently driving. Very fuel efficient, very reliable, great torque and actually
fairly simple, in a modern way. And get the feds off my back, out of my wallet.
Bill
Last edited:
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
I tow about 7,000 miles a year a 7200 pound 5th wheel. While I would really like to have a Ram 2500 diesel, I have just never been able to justify the added $14,000 purchase cost, to go from 11 mpg to 14 mpg. Here gas is $3.10 and diesel $3.45 a gallon. Running empty I get 20.0 mpg on the Ram 1500 Hemi. Would like to have bigger brakes though! They got pretty hot coming down the 12,100 foot Independence Pass into Aspen, CO, once. 
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Yep, makes good sense. Much more sense in a diesel than in gasoline. Cannot overboost
a diesel, and expecially given that background in the photo- high altitude, it makes sense. And YOU CAN CHOOSE
it. If I want any Accord - it HAS TO BE a turbo.
The bigger the vehicle, the lower the gas mileage, the more it makes sense. IF THE FIRST COST IS EQUAL.
11 mpg for 10K miles is 909 gallons. At $3.10/gallon, that is $2818. At 14 mpg, that goes to
714 gallons, and $2464. Savings of $353 every 10K miles. So even if the turbo pukes in 60K
miles (unlikely) you will have saved $2118 in fuel, plus a more driveable vehicle. That will
probably more than cover the cost of a new turbo. If the turbo makes it to 100K miles, you have
almost $3500 in savings on fuel, plus better driveability.
BUT - as you point out - the initial cost of $14K more. Even at 100K miles of driving, the savings are
~1/4th the added cost. So break even is 490K miles, economically. If the first cost was the
same, the choice would be easy, lots of savings. But at that HUGE first cost.
If you were a commercial hauler, then it may make sense, depending on how long the turbo
would live. Might do that break even mileage in one year as a commercial trucker. Pretty
hard at 7,000 per year.
In my case, the turbo Accord does NOTHING better except maybe burn a little less fuel, at an irrelevant
savings level.
Oh, wait, not a NA diesel vs a turbo diesel.....a NA gas vs turbo diesel. OK, reworked the fuel calcs for
gasoline. Not as good.
Bill
a diesel, and expecially given that background in the photo- high altitude, it makes sense. And YOU CAN CHOOSE
it. If I want any Accord - it HAS TO BE a turbo.
The bigger the vehicle, the lower the gas mileage, the more it makes sense. IF THE FIRST COST IS EQUAL.
11 mpg for 10K miles is 909 gallons. At $3.10/gallon, that is $2818. At 14 mpg, that goes to
714 gallons, and $2464. Savings of $353 every 10K miles. So even if the turbo pukes in 60K
miles (unlikely) you will have saved $2118 in fuel, plus a more driveable vehicle. That will
probably more than cover the cost of a new turbo. If the turbo makes it to 100K miles, you have
almost $3500 in savings on fuel, plus better driveability.
BUT - as you point out - the initial cost of $14K more. Even at 100K miles of driving, the savings are
~1/4th the added cost. So break even is 490K miles, economically. If the first cost was the
same, the choice would be easy, lots of savings. But at that HUGE first cost.
If you were a commercial hauler, then it may make sense, depending on how long the turbo
would live. Might do that break even mileage in one year as a commercial trucker. Pretty
hard at 7,000 per year.
In my case, the turbo Accord does NOTHING better except maybe burn a little less fuel, at an irrelevant
savings level.
Oh, wait, not a NA diesel vs a turbo diesel.....a NA gas vs turbo diesel. OK, reworked the fuel calcs for
gasoline. Not as good.
Bill
Last edited:
Ian
Notorious member
Ric, I never saw a pulloff between where you took that photo and downtown, definitely hell on brakes and you're hugging cliff side of the road the whole way down. How'd you like that 90°, one-lane, blind righthand hairpin turn near the bottom? There are a few motorhome chassis still rotting down by the river a couple thousand feet below that.
Ian
Notorious member
And you might actually like it. You know they control A/F with computers now, don't you?
As far as complexity, a NON-turbo 2019 vehicle is likely to be outside of almost everyone's diagnostic and repair capabilities anyway, so really there isn't much difference from a consumer standpoint. Don't sell your 4-Runner.
RBHarter
West Central AR
It is an 86 . Has a distributor bit the coil is bolted to the d&t where the hole for the excentric driven fuel pump should be . The fuel pump is in the tank . This little wonder switch was an add on module to the electric part ignition switch that basically hooks the tach and speedo to the ecm . Speed , load , tpi , o² , maf/map data zoom as it stands now misfire , no power , injection runs wide open and it's almost like the caps wired 180 out . It's parked and tagged for another day .
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
This is right across the road from the sign facing west.
Going west down the pass, I looked for the aluminum rub marks on right hand sides of the rock cuts! That is where the long Class C's couldn't make it. Short bed pickup and 22 foot 5th wheel can bend almost anywhere a Suburban can go with you can use 12 feet of road way. The pull off is where the snow plows turn around, about 2/3rds of the way down, on the right.