Author Topic: ugly car (Read 5608 times)

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #25 on:** September 19, 2007, 03:18:22 PM »

Quote

Aw c'mon, NOBODY held a candle to AMC when it came to hideous. I give you proof, the 74 Matador Coupe. You might wanna avert your eyes...

So thats a Matador!

K Frame · « **Reply #26 on:** September 19, 2007, 08:06:32 PM »

In retrospect, these weren't very good looking, but I had a '77 Maverick with a 302 V8 and that thing could absolutely scream, so I have a soft spot in my heart for them.

jeepmor · « **Reply #27 on:** September 20, 2007, 12:11:44 AM »

And the pink isn't what bothers me.

Don't get me wrong, I still think AMC holds the "all time ugly" torch with about any car they made in the 70's. But GM has come real close lately. Give it a good name, a stupid high price and call it a status symbol......SOLD!!!

mfree · « **Reply #28 on:** September 20, 2007, 03:09:30 AM »

A Maverick? Mavericks aren't ugly...

Boomhauer · « **Reply #29 on:** September 20, 2007, 03:57:03 AM »

Yeah, I don't get the Hummer H2 and H3 thing. I mean, I could see if they made a smaller version of the H1 and sold it for cheaper, but the H2 and H3 series just looks particularly ugly...

K Frame · « **Reply #30 on:** September 20, 2007, 04:58:56 AM »

Quote from: mfree on September 20, 2007, 02:09:30 AM

A Maverick? Mavericks aren't ugly...

Ah, good. I still get misty about my Maverick. I almost bought one several years ago. It had the 302, but I couldn't do it... It was a 4 door.

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #31 on:** September 20, 2007, 05:35:19 AM »

I thought the Maverick was a very good lucking car for its price.

I remember they had ads emphasizing that you could maintain it yourself. One of the ads showed, within the space of the minute that the commercial ran, four women who came over with wrenches and removed all the body panels.

K Frame · « **Reply #32 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:16:59 AM »

Yeah, that was probably the last generation of cars that the shade tree mechanic truly could maintain top to bottom.

The "computer" was rudimentary, at best, and I think served only to control the electronic ignition module.

It was a bit problematic changing the rear most spark plugs on the 8 cylinder, but it wasn't impossible.

Changing the oil was a challenge, though, as Ford really loves to hide that filter down underneath, a trait which continues in their designs to this very day.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #33 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:26:42 AM »

Thread drift...

People make too much over the computerized car issue. It's really not all that hard to maintain a modern car. It's different, but the basic tools you need aren't all that expensive and they're offset by the tools you don't need.

Chris

Larry Ashcraft · « **Reply #34 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:35:33 AM »

We had a 1973 Comet with the 302. Same body style as the Maverick. I always liked that car.

The thing absolutely refused to quit running, even after one cylinder died. It was always dependable, even as a 7 cylinder.

K Frame · « **Reply #35 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:46:07 AM »

I never said that it wasn't hard to maintain a modern car.

I am saying, however, that the computerization of cars has taken tasks that were once relatively easy into the realm of the trained technician.

Changing brake pads/rotors is the same as it's been for 50 years.

Even changing spark plugs is the same.

Diagnosing and fixing ignition issues is more problematic because the computer control has interlinked so many of the processes that were once independent of each other.

Things have, however, shifted back the other way in the last few years now that easy-to-use code readers are readily availble. You can even get code reader modules that synch up with a Palm Pilot.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #36 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:56:21 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on September 20, 2007, 05:46:07 AM

You can even get code reader modules that synch up with a Palm Pilot.

I have one for my PocketPC. It can record data in realtime and produce a Pocket Excel spreadsheet for you, complete with graphs.

There's also refits for the black box of some cars that will let you adjust the fuel mixture, advance ignition timing, change throttle settings and cam switch points with a laptop. (the wise usually pick from preset performance curve settings for regular driving or racing, since if you muck it up, you'll just make the car stall or be otherwise unhappy.)

mtnbkr · « **Reply #37 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:58:35 AM »

Older cars didn't have computers, but they had ignition systems that could fail in subtle ways without any way to determine the failure other than to test each component with a multimeter or feeler gauges.

Is that ignition problem the coil, plugs, plug wires, condensor, points, some random wire leading to/from the coil/condensor, etc?

A modern ignition system is simpler in my view. You have fewer parts and most of those parts talk to the computer which can deliver easy to understand codes. If you don't have a code reader, most cars can deliver codes via the CEL. Sometimes you have to put a jumper on the diagnostic port, others have a button you press.

I've worked at both ends of the spectrum. Not only is it easier to diagnose a problem on a modern car, you don't have to do it as often. The only downside is that it tends to be more expensive when you do have to repair something.

Chris

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #38 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:13:22 AM »

I took the electronic ignition module out of my Harley, and replaced it with the original points and condenser set.

Give me a carburetor and a points/condenser or magneto ignition anyday. That's what's going into my '53 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup's 383 as I speak. grin

mtnbkr · « **Reply #39 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:26:30 AM »

If I were building a custom engine, I'd probably want carbs, points, etc because I know how to adjust that to an unknown engine, but for a factory vehicle, I'm happy with electronics and FI.

I scoured junkyards in rural NC to get the larger jets I needed for the Weber progressive carb I put on my mildly oversized VW engine while in college. I didn't want to pay the price for "official" Weber jets and parts since the same carb (rebranded) was used on domestic autos in the 70s. When I finally got it jetted to match the engine, I had peppy Vdub.

IIRC (been nearly 15 years), I replaced the idle jet with a slightly smaller one and the accellerator pump "squirter" with a larger one. The end result wasn't so much a change in total fuel used, but how it was delivered. The larger "squirter" nozzle dumped the same volume of fuel quicker and offset the smaller idle jet, improving the off-line performance. The idle jet was used until you the RPMs and fuel requirement got much higher (basically you spend most of your time on the idle yet) before the mains kicked in. That plus a bit of idle circuit tweaking got things running smoothly. Man I miss that car...

Chris

K Frame · « **Reply #40 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:38:08 AM »

I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure the first rudimentary computers started going into cars in the early 1970s.

My 1977 Maverick had a very simplistic computer that synched, or attempted to synch, ignition functions -- literally a "one chip" wonder that automakers began introducing as a result of tightening environmental laws.

In these older systems it was supposedly possible to completely remove the computer, jumper the wires, and increase the power and performance markedly.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #41 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:42:22 AM »

IIRC, they did start in the 70s, but they didn't become "reliable" until the 80s. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't really reach reliability until the 90s, but I'm sure that's a matter of opinion. Wink

Chris

K Frame · « **Reply #42 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:49:07 AM »

Early 1980s...

One of the car companies brought out a new car/computer design, and it immediately started failing because of a very very simple design issue that wasn't part of the computer...

They ended up recalling something like 150,000 new cars...

I'm wanting to say that one of the wiring connectors under the hood would get hot from the engine and if it was wet out it ran a very high risk of shorting out, which caused a feedback that killed the computer...

Who the heck was that?

mtnbkr · « **Reply #43 on:** September 20, 2007, 07:54:03 AM »

I don't recall. I do know our early 80s Ford LTD had a persistant computer problem that eventually forced my parents to get rid of it even though the car ran great otherwise. A new computer would probably fix it, but they were concerned about putting $800 into it and having the replacement develop the same problem.

Chris

mfree · « **Reply #44 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:21:36 AM »

Oh, there are tons of early computing gaffes... Chryslers eating ballast resistors, Ford TFI units overheating to failure, GM putting a computer in a Cadillac so poorly shielded that a cellphone used in the car would shut it off...

RadioFreeSeaLab · « **Reply #45 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:28:40 AM »

Chevy Citation II.

charby · « **Reply #46 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:29:54 AM »

points....

In high-school had a 1968 Plymouth Satellite with a 383 and if I really ran hard on a Friday night, I was adjusting the points (and timing) the next day to get it right again. I would run it so hard that I'd break motor mounts.

I couldn't imagine what I'd done if I had a 426 Hemi. Those would dyno at 800+ HP

Then when I was 25 I bought a 89 5.0 Mustang that was modded pretty good, I could run hard all weekend long and never worry about adjusting squat.

Sindawe · « **Reply #47 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:25:17 PM »

Quote

'77 Maverick with a 302 V8 and that thing could absolutely scream

Sidebar: I can attest to that. A friend inherited on of those and it was scary.

Then he pulled the 302/tranny/rear-end and stuck it in a PINTO!

Sweet Zombie Jesus that monstrosity was ugly, but when the accelerator was stepped on it felt like a Warp Drive.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #48 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:39:37 PM »

Quote

People make too much over the computerized car issue. It's really not all that hard to maintain a modern car. It's different, but the basic tools you need aren't all that expensive and they're offset by the tools you don't need.

But when you are stuck on the side of the road w/o your pocket scanner, you are screwed. At least, we can usually patch together our older cars long enough to limp home for better and more permanent repairs...

Quote

Then he pulled the 302/tranny/rear-end and stuck it in a PINTO!

Ugh...Pinto...

While we are on the subject of ugly cars, let's not forget the wonderful colors. Baby *expletive deleted*it yellow or puke green, anyone?

K Frame · « **Reply #49 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Sindawe on September 20, 2007, 05:25:17 PM

Quote

'77 Maverick with a 302 V8 and that thing could absolutely scream

Sidebar: I can attest to that. A friend inherited on of those and it was scary.

Then he pulled the 302/tranny/rear-end and stuck it in a PINTO!

Sweet Zombie Jesus that monstrosity was ugly, but when the accelerator was stepped on it felt like a Warp Drive.

Pintos were available stock with the same short block V8 302, standard (4 speed) or automatic (3 speed) transmission, and 3.8 to 1 ratio rear end as the Mavricks AND the Mustangs of the same vintage.

It was the exact same frame, just different bodies and finish trims. The curb weights were all within something like 400 pounds of each other.

A friend of mine had a Pinto that was the exact same as my Maverick.

Don't forget that wonderous Ford Orange from that time frame, Avenger. You could see one of those from a mile away. Get a couple of years of fade on the paint, and things got REALLY psychodelic.

At least my Maverick was silver. It had a black vinyl top. I was going to see my girlfriend in New York one weekend and the damned top peeled back on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Thank God for a pocket knife and duct tape!

News:

Author Topic: ugly car (Read 5608 times)