The Lost Art of Automotive Tinkering - Cars as Disposable Appliances

[Separatist]

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/04/20/new-vs-old/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The New vs The Old

I got into a debate the other day with a reader about the future of the car hobby; about whether today’s cars are fundamentally disposable appliances that work great for a long time – their chief virtue – but when they do finally begin to wear out, the cost to replace their numerous complex systems (especially the electronics) will be so high that most people will simply throw the car away in favor of a new one.

Like cell phones, for instance.

Also, that the new stuff’s complexity is a turn-off to tinkering, especially for beginners – the new crop of the old car hobby. Teenagers who have yet to acquire the higher skills (and more expensive tools) needed to work on today’s cars.

And so – for the most part – do not.

I gave the example of my old muscle car from the ‘70s as a point of comparison, focusing on its fuel delivery system vs. that of a modern car.

It consists of a single major component – a carburetor – which is a “stand alone” mechanical device that mixes the air and fuel.

It is held in place by four bolts and can be removed from the car in 5 minutes or less.

It can be disassembled in about the same amount of time with basic hand tools – and is amenable to adjustment.

You can tinker with it.

This is appealing to beginners.

There is something tactile about turning mixture screws, changing out jets. It’s physical and hands-on. You can see what you’re doing. And you are doing something more than pulling and replacing non-repairable electrical stuff you can’t tinker with. And which requires both a fairly sophisticated knowledge of electrical things as well as more sophisticated tools, too.

There are no wires or harnesses connected to my car’s carburetor. No sensors that plug into it; no computer that controls it. The air-fuel ratio is determined by turning in and out mixture screws, replacing jets and metering rods… not code.

There is a physical cable connected to the accelerator pedal. You can work it back and forth by hand. See the throttle open and close.

Nothing electronic can go wrong with it because there are no electronics.

And carburetors last a very long time.

My car has its original factory carburetor. It has been mixing air and fuel for more than 40 years. Barring physical abuse (such as damaging the metal castings by over-tightening the mounting bolts) it will probably continue to do so for another 40 years.

It may at some point need to have its throttle shaft repaired; these do wear out eventually. And every four or five years or so I tear it down and give it a thorough cleaning, replacing wear parts like the float, the accelerator pump plunger, needle and seat, gaskets, etc.

These parts cost about $50.

In the Worst Case Scenario, the carb may at some point have to be replaced with a new one. At most, the cost will be about $400. Or buy a good (rebuildable) core for about $150.

Remember: You can rebuild carburetors.

And whether you rebuild or replace, that $150-$400 or so will be the total cost to renew the entire fuel-delivery system. There are no peripherals. No harnesses, no ECU, no sensors. And replacing a carburetor is something a teenage kid without much in the way of tools or experience can handle, easily. He can also afford a rebuild kit – and even the $400 or so for a brand-new carb (if necessary) is doable on a high school kid’s budget.

I think that’s why kids used to work on cars. They could afford to – and the cars of the pre-computer era were much more approachable if you were a kid. For instance, you could turn the idle up or down with a screwdriver. Cool!

Mixture adjustment was also easily made.

You bought a set of jets (less than $10) installed them and observed the results. Piddled with the secondaries’ spring tension to alter their opening rate. Cost? Zero.

Very gratifying when you are 16 or 17 … and just getting to know cars.

Now consider a modern car’s fuel injection system. There are many components – most of them electronic and not serviceable or tunable.

They work – or they don’t.

And you can’t tell by looking at them, manipulating them with your hands. There is nothing to see. Nothing you can get your hands on.

There is no tinkering to be done – unless plugging in a scan tool and reading OBD trouble codes counts.

There are individual injectors for each of the engine’s cylinders and these are not repairable/rebuildable. When they stop working, you throw them away and buy new parts. My reader friend’s 1997 Mustang has eight of these injectors. The lowest cost replacements I could find cost about $35 each (see here) or about $270 for the set. You’re already at more than 50 percent of the cost of a brand-new carburetor for my old Pontiac.

And you may – and at some point will – have to buy a mass airflow sensor and various other sensors, too. The computer that controls everything will also croak eventually.

It all costs money. Remember: These electrical components are not fixable. You throw them away. You buy new parts.

Now, most of these parts will last a long time; and they will not need to be replaced all at once. But they will not last forever and the cost to replace them will be much higher than a $50 rebuild kit for a carburetor.

Meanwhile, today’s teens face much higher costs for almost everything – not just cars. Insurance especially has become obnoxious. It is hard to afford a car – any car – on a teenager’s means.

Most seem to spend whatever disposable cash they have on devices – iPhones and such. There is not much left for ECUs and MAF and MAP and 02 sensors.

And the waters are deeper, too.

I remember popping the hood, spinning off the air cleaner wing nut and looking at my first carburetor. It was right there. I could see the fuel squirt when I worked the throttle arm manually with my hand. You cannot see anything happening when dealing with electronic fuel injection. Just plastic boxes and things with wires coming out of them.

It’s not particularly enticing.

There’s not much to play with.

It works – or it doesn’t.

Which is what you want in an appliance.

Something you use for awhile – and then throw away.

[Ezra]

You must be old.

New vehicles are not hard to work on. Just need a scanner. They are quite simple.

Are you like 70 or something?

[gclayjr]

Separatist, Ezra

This is a topic near and dear to my heart. I have to emphatically agree with the author Separatist linked to. I am an old guy (64), but I don't think my sons are so old, combination of Gen X and millennials. I also think that the problem goes much further than this article refers.

I agree that cars today are better than cars of the 60's and 70's, let alone 80's and 90's, but not nearly so exciting as those cars. I also believe that american culture has changed. If you read Popular Mechanics in the 50's and sixties, you would see them full of do it yourself projects including how to build a steam engine, or your own go-kart. Now it is mostly product reviews.

Ezra, I, my sons, and many mechanics I know will have to disagree with your assertion that new cars are easy to work on if you have and OBD2 reader/computer. First, it turns out that a good percentage of the time the code does not clearly point to the problem, and there are several things that may cause the same code. Also, the machines used by garages cost thousands of dollars, not the hundreds of dollars that a typical home reader costs. Even with these things, there is a lot of guessing and collaboration with other mechanics to figure out what is REALLY going on.

There is a big difference between say a 1996 car and say a 2006 car. They are both controlled by an ECM, that uses the OBD II protocol, but the 2006 car is much more complicated than the 1996 car. For example, if you are simply replacing an electric window motor, on the 1996, you will probably only have to replace the motor. In the 2006 car, you will also have to reprogram the window motor controller. Don't even ask me about traction control subsystems, which are required by federal law. A mechanic has to use either a science or a witchcraft to figure these things out.

I drive a 2000 Ford Focus. It has over 193K miles on it. I suppose I will have to get rid of it eventually, but I am thinking that when I do, I will go to an even older car. The Focus has a computer, electronic ignition, and electronic fuel injection, but otherwise it is a pretty simple car. I knowing a bit about electronics, and mechanics can work on it. I would never work on anything newer than 2006.

There are 2 other problems related to this. As the cars get more complicated, there is more to break. During the 80's and 90's they were able to offset increased complication with better build quality and more reliable parts. I think the low hanging fruit here is gone. THe cars are just getting more complicated.

So even if you are not a do it yourself type, you will have to spend a lot more money repairing them then you used to do. A 2006 car is now 10 years old. They are going to start to break down. It used to be that you could economize by buying an older car, and maintaining it and save a lot of money over buying a new car. Now I'm not so sure this is so true.

So if you have limited means, I feel you are screwed either way.

Regards,
George Clay

[iWriteStuff]

There are 2 other problems related to this. As the cars get more complicated, there is more to break. During the 80's and 90's they were able to offset increased complication with better build quality and more reliable parts. I think the low hanging fruit here is gone. THe cars are just getting more complicated.

Thanks for the input, George. Out of curiosity, what would be a good make/model/year for a novice to work on? I enjoy such activities but haven't been brave enough to attempt anything on my cars as they have crossed into the 2000's. I've been looking for something older that I can work on and service myself, but my knowledge of good reputable cars in the 80's and 90's is limited.

[Separatist]

More of the same:
http://ericpetersautos.com/2011/07/03/t ... -part-two/

While modern cars are more reliable at first and last longer – for awhile – after about 15 years, when their much more complicated systems begin to reach the end of their useful service life, modern cars become progressively more expensive to keep up and within a few years, uneconomic to keep. If you want to talk about “planned obsolescence,” this is what it’s really all about.

I got into an argument here with another poster about this. I pointed out that a car like my ’76 Pontiac Trans-Am has a very basic drivetrain, the entire thing rebuilt easily and relatively inexpensively. For example, the engine consists of a cast iron lump of metal with a very simple fuel delivery system. There is a cast iron intake manifold (almost indestructible/essentially infinite usable life) and a simple stand-alone fuel mixing device – the carburetor – which can be rebuilt to as-new condition with a simple gasket/seal kit for about $75 if you do the work yourself (well within the capability of a reasonably competent DIY mechanic with a few basic hand tools) or maybe a couple hundred if you turned the job over to a professional rebuilder such as Cliff Ruggles. My old Pontiac’s entire fuel-delivery system can be restored to factory-new condition for a few hundred bucks – and that includes peripherals such as the fuel pump (simple, mechanical, easy to get to and replace). This process can be repeated probably infinitely or at least many, many times, well beyond my own lifetime. My Trans-Am could and probably will be still running 100 years from now.

But a modern car with a fuel-injected engine and computer?

Even if you assume that the often-plastic major components (including the intake manifold itself) don’t deteriorate to the point of requiring replacement after 20-plus years or so, eventually, inevitably, the electrical components – including the computer that controls everything – will fail and will then require replacement. Note: not repair. Electrical components are often not serviceable; you throw them away and replace them with new parts. If you can find new parts… .

And even if the parts are available 20 or 30 or more years down the road, they will be orders of magnitude more expensive than the parts needed to keep an older, pre-electronic car like my Pontiac running – unless there is a miraculous reduction in the cost of these parts in the future. But today, a replacement computer can cost many hundreds of dollars; then there are the multiple sensors necessary for the system to function properly. Each of these little parts has a big price tag. But we haven’t even gotten to the fuel system itself yet. Now we need multiple injectors (most late model cars have one for each cylinder), fuel rails, the wiring harnesses associated with all this… etc.

If you had to replace most of the major components of a late-model fuel-injected car 20 or 30 or more years from now, it is likely you would be spending $1,000 or more just to get the parts – if you can find the parts. (It is very likely that many parts will not be available decades from now – precisely because of the economics. It is cost-sensible to reproduce a $70 rebuild kit for a 1976 Rochester Quadrajet; it is probably not going to be cost-sensible to reproduce a $600 EFI wiring harness for an ’87 IROC-Z.)

Then you’d need a higher order of knowledge/aptitude/skill to actually restore the system. Or you’d have to pay someone who has such to do the work – another big expense.

My friend – the guy who argued with me – said that learning how to competently work on an electronic car is not harder than learning to work on a pre-electronic car. I very much disagree with him. A 16-year-old with a basic socket set can remove the intake manifold from my Trans-Am and reinstall it. The equivalent job on an electronic/EFI car is much more involved, requires more skill and tools. I’ve worked on both, so I’m speaking from experience. The carburetor is a straight forward and basically simple mechanical device; if you have a Holley carb, an extremely simple mechanical device with only a few moving parts that almost anyone can remove/replace/rebuild in literally 15-30 minutes’ time. The equivalent job on a late-model car with a computer and EFI is much more involved, requiring at least a working knowledge of fairly complex electronics as well as specialized tools and diagnostic equipment. Even “trained” technicians often have trouble isolating and dealing with bugs that develop with modern computerized/electronic systems.

The engine itself:

I could have the engine out of my car and on the stand, ready to tear down, in about an hour using basic hand tools.

Rebuilding the entire engine to “good as new” is a simple process, involving some light machine work, a set of gaskets/rings/bearings, etc. and about 2-3 hours of assembly time. If I do the work myself, the cost (machining and gaskets/bearings, etc. ) for the entire job is going to be less than $800. That is for a complete tear down and rebuilding to as-new condition – good to go for another 100,000-plus miles.

If I paid to have the engine professionally rebuilt the cost would be about $3,000.

Remember: My engine needs no sensors, no complex wiring or electronics. The whole “works” can be brought back to functionally new condition for an amount of money that’s not only manageable, it’s proportionate to the value of the car itself.

And this is where you get into trouble with a late-model car. Unless it is a desirable collectible and worth a lot of money – and few late model cars will fall into this class 20, 30 or more years from now – the cost to keep it going (let alone restore it) will be out of proportion to the worth of the vehicle itself.

For instance, something pedestrian like a Camry or Corolla. After 15-20 years, how much will such a car be worth? Probably next to nothing, maybe $2,500 or so.

Who is going to put $1,500 into such a car – for anything?

In the past, an equivalent pedestrian model such as Chevy Nova or Dodge Dart was like my Trans-Am; it was simple, cheap and easy to keep going.

New cars have many virtues, among them “just drive it” reliability for many years from new. But eventually, almost every modern, computer-controlled, EFI-equipped car will reach a point of diminishing returns, a point after which it becomes either cost-prohibitive as such to keep it going – or cost-nonsensical to do so relative to the value of the car itself.

[Separatist]

I agree that cars today are better than cars of the 60's and 70's, let alone 80's and 90's, but not nearly so exciting as those cars. I also believe that american culture has changed. If you read Popular Mechanics in the 50's and sixties, you would see them full of do it yourself projects including how to build a steam engine, or your own go-kart. Now it is mostly product reviews.

This is true George. The reviews from Car and Driver and such are more about the latest and greatest safety features, and not about the machine itself.

Here is another fun one about the Polaris, the 3 wheeled car (click the link for photos):
http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/03/24/s ... und-uncle/

There is a way out

Of half a dozen (or more) air bags and seat belt buzzers and back-up cameras and narc-you-out black boxes and automatic braking (soon to be a mandatory “feature” in all new cars).

Just don’t buy a car.

Buy a “motorcycle” that just happens to be a car… or close enough to be serviceable as one.

Like the Polaris Slingshot, for instance.

Technically – legally – it is a motorcycle. But it seats two, side-by-side. You do not ride it, as you would a bike.

You drive it.

Just like a car.

But without all the “safety” folderol – and weight and cost – that every new car comes with, like it or not. Which means the Polaris Slingshot is extremely quick (zero to 60 in under 5 seconds) and extremely fuel efficient (nearly 40 MPG) which is a function of the fact that it weighs just over 1,600 pounds… which is a function of that fact that motorcycles do not have to meet Uncle’s many mandates that apply to cars.

The Slingshot does not have to pass the ridiculous crash tests that have resulted in subcompact cars that weigh 1,000 pounds more than the subcompacts of the past – and for this reason don’t match the gas mileage delivered by the subcompacts of the past, despite the new stuff having all the advantages of modern technology.

Now, the Slingshot is technically a motorcycle. To maintain that pose, it’s got three wheels rather than four – and it hasn’t got a roof (or doors) though a windshield is available as an option.

This is how it slips through the cracks, Uncle-wise.

It is sold as a motorcycle – and registered as one. But you could absolutely use it as a car.

Especially if you were to add a targa top and/or similar doors to the thing, for rainy days and such. Think of the Jeep Wrangler. You can remove the doors in minutes and convertible models have just a fabric top that can be peeled off at will when the weather’s nice and snapped back on when it’s not.

But you can’t remove the Wrangler’s multiple air bags, or the back-up camera or the rest of the Uncle-mandated gear.

With the Slingshot, you don’t have to worry about all that – because it’s not there in the first place.

What is there is a 173 hp 2.4 liter engine (sourced from GM) connected to a five-speed manual transmission (no automatic; move on if you’re that type of person), staggered size lightweight alloy wheels shod with specially made Kenda “Slingshot” high-performance tires (205/50R17s up front, a single 265/35/R18 out back) all snugged into a lightweight steel space frame covered up with removable polymer plastic body panels.Polaris engine

Ho ho!

173 hp in a 1,600 pound chassis…

That’s a helluva power-to-weight ratio.

Want to smoke the tires (whoops, the tire) in third gear? No problem.

And modifying the 2.4 liter four for an even better power-to-weight ratio is easy – GM sells a supercharger kit over the counter – and you’ll have the money for that, because the Slingshot only costs about what you’d pay to get into something like a new Civic or Corolla… which would come with the air bags, the back-up camera, the buzzers and all the @#!!$#!%. And it’d be slow. Because heavy. And not get particularly good gas mileage, either.

Because Uncle.

The Slingshot does comes standard with a decent stereo rig (upgradeable to a better one) with Bluetooth and cruise control.

What else do you need?

This is how cars used to be made. Simple. Fun. Accessible. There were Volvos for the dry twats and safety geeks. Now all cars are like that. They look the same, they feel the same (numb, boring).

This thing will not bore you.

It is an antidote to everything that’s gone wrong with the car business. A way to end-run all of that.

Possibly, a way to save the car business. The Slingshot gives us just a peek at the kinds of cars we might have, were it not for Uncle. Elio Motors gives us another glimpse – with the emphasis on virtually free operation (80-plus MPG) rather than warp-speed performance.

Clovers would have their “safety” cars, too. They just wouldn’t be able to force them down our throats.

At just under $20k to start, the Slingshot costs more than most motorcycles – but it’s still cheap relative to most cars. Especially given what it can do – and not just performance-wise.

I mean for your soul.

How good would it feel to be free of Uncle and his endless for-your-own-good (but always at your expense) micro-management of the type of car you’re allowed to buy?

Feed him fish heads!

Now, you may have to get a motorcycle endorsement to legally drive the Slingshot. But you won’t have to wear a helmet, another bit of Uncle end-running wonderfulness.

Get one before Uncle notices…

…and before it’s too late.

[shadow]

I used to own a Saturn outlook, same car as GMC Acadia, Chevy Traverse and Buick Enclave. At about 100k miles it would intermittently start in safe mode and the check engine light would come on. All I had to do was turn the car off, then turn it on again and the problem went away for a few weeks. So after it happened I took it to my mechanic who then referred me to the dealer. The dealer said I had a $2 solenoid in the transmission that was on its way out. No problem. Well, so I thought. To get to the dam solenoid the front interior had to be removed- the seats, the console, some of the dash and some odds and ends. This was just to get to the transmission access panel. Once there the transmission guts (6 speed automatic) had to be removed so the tech could get back to where the solenoid was. $1000 to change a $2 part. Not too simple. GM's 700r4 or its older 3 speed versions, the turbo 350 and 400 probably cost less than that brand new and certainly wouldn't be so labor intensive to fix.

[gclayjr]

iWriteStuff,

Thanks for the input, George. Out of curiosity, what would be a good make/model/year for a novice to work on? I enjoy such activities but haven't been brave enough to attempt anything on my cars as they have crossed into the 2000's. I've been looking for something older that I can work on and service myself, but my knowledge of good reputable cars in the 80's and 90's is limited.

That is a very interesting question. As soon as you get out of the 70's, you will be talking about electronic fuel injection, and electronic ignition. If you get into 60's and early 70's you can work with carburetors, and distributors. The problem you have here is two fold

1) the cars are pretty old
2) parts become harder and harder to find

The most expensive problem (perhaps short of a blown engine or transmission) that you may have to deal with is body rust. Unless you have a good shop and skills, you cannot overcome body and frame rust. Walk away from it. Whether you are talking about something 80's and 90's or something 60's and 70's.

Another problem with 60's and 70's cars is that many of them are becoming pretty collectible. That is fine if you are an enthusiast with money, but not so good for someone with limit funds. However, if you could find a six cylinder compact car like a Plymouth Valiant, or a dodge Dart (Chrysler slant 6's are very reliable and very simple engines) that would be a good basis for a handyman. Chevy Nova's and Ford Falcons are good too. Get a 3 speed manual if possible.

While I took some issue with Ezra in regards to newer Cars, he did have a point. If you are not afraid of doing some basic electronics and buying a meter, 80's and 90's cars can be relatively easy to work on. Most of these cars have something called an ECM (Electronic Control Module). During the 1980s and the first part of the 1990s each manufacturer kind did their own thing with engine electronics. The access to these computer is called OBD (On Board Diagnostics). In 1996, the car manufacturers decided to standardize on the OBD (I don't know if this was just an agreement between manufacturers or a government mandate). Before 1996, this is called OBD 1. 1996 and later it is called OBD II. Not all meters can read OBD 1, and you will need to get at least a special plug depending upon the manufacturer. However, some of the electronics is simpler, and some older cars have a "limp home mode" so that even if something goes wrong with sensors, or the computer, the car can continue to operate, although inefficiently.

1996, and newer cars are standardized on OBD II and most scanners can read, clear codes etc. As I mentioned above, I have become alarmed as I have observed that for various reasons, some government mandates, and some marketing, all cars are becoming much more complicated. You do not only have an ECM controlling ignition and fuel injection, but you other computers controlling your traction control, your air conditioning, your windows, and a whole host of other functions of your car. I kind of arbitrarily chose 2006, as a year that I decided it has all become too complicated, even for a dedicated enthusiast.

I must confess that most of my experience, and that of my sons are related to cars chosen more for their appeal to an enthusiast, rather than simplicity. My oldest son has convinced many of us that Pontiac Fieros are Cool. We have 5 of them in our family (including me). I also have a 1994 Pontiac Trans AM. We chose to work on these cars because of the smile factor, we were not looking for the simplest car. One advantage of these cars, is that there are a lot of enthusiasts who invest a lot of time providing on-line content explaining every detail of these cars. My son does many very professional You Tube videos. Below is a sample:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dECeILzroI

I would guess that among the simplest OBD II cars to work on would be 1996-2000 Chevy Cavalier or maybe a Ford Focus, or some other such basic car. Try for cars without too may frills. I prefer wind up windows and a manual transmission, but you need not go that far.

I guess I didn't give you a specific answer, but I hope this helps you with your decision.

Regards,

George Clay

[skmo]

This topic breaks my heart.

Thanks for the input, George. Out of curiosity, what would be a good make/model/year for a novice to work on?

Try a 67-79 Ford Truck, or even better a late 60s to 87 Chevy truck. With Dodge you can go anywhere up to about 93. You can still buy almost anything you need from J C Whitney. For that matter, look through their website and see which cars you can still get a lot of stuff for. What I like about the trucks is that I can get a reliable vehicle I can haul lots of stuff with that I'm already familiar with. (I had a 1970 Ford in High School, and 1980-1982 I took two years of Auto Mech in HS.)

[skmo]

....like a Plymouth Valiant, or a dodge Dart (Chrysler slant 6's are very reliable and very simple engines)

You're making me tear up. Just remembering my sister's Valient with a Dodge 225 slant six...

[gclayjr]

skmo,

I guess you are not a millennial, if you can remember those days. Yes, some pick up trucks were very good to work on. And I remember sitting on the fender of a Dodge Dart with my feet In the engine compartment while working on it. It was nice to not have to bang knuckles, and try to "get at" stuff in difficult, crowded corners.

Regards,

George CLay

[Sirocco]

I grew up in the 90s (and 2000s, though was a preteen when they begun) and I never did anything like that with cars when I were young.
I know my dad fixed older cars when I was small though I didn't get involved, being too young to care or be useful.
By time I hit my teens it was 2002 and there was no tinkering with cars.
That was a thing people on TV did, or people with old classic cars did.
What with cars now being insanely expensive, I chose to have my own place vs going for a car, it's way too expensive and I don't live in a place to justify really needing to own one.
I'll never live in a rural area, in the future I plan to move to a bigger city.
And then of course there's Canada's insane weather, I've been in two crashes because of that (I wasn't driving but still).
I'd rather take a subway, costs way less.
The car thing among millennials I assume is being felt, everytime I go back to visit my mother, I pass by these massive parking lots of unsold cars.
They're huge, filled with cars that will never be sold.
They can't stop making them.
If I ever do get a car, it won't be very good (like my phone) and will last about as long as a used phone.

[dconrad000]

You guys might appreciate this:

In high school, in the late 70's these were the three vehicles I owned:

...started out with a 1966 straight-six rambler station wagon at the age of 16, which I drove for a year...sold that and purchased a 1969 F-100, 360 V8, standard transmission Ford truck, which I owned for 4 months...sold that and purchased a 1972 Plymouth Roadrunner. I bought a 1968 440 out of a crashed chrysler with 60,000 miles on it for $100, rebuilt it myself and dropped it into the Roadrunner...not much else in the country could touch it...went on a mission to the Netherlands 6 months later. It looked like this, only the color was sky-blue.

[David13]

I didn't know, but I would have suspected you were capable of such things, Dave Conrad.
I did much of the same, changing transmissions, I converted a Chevrolet auto to stick. You can't do that with the newer models, the computer won't allow it.
I also like working on motorcycles, and have done the same there, rebuilding, any and all repairs, etc. I really enjoy all of it. I just don't get to do enough of it any more.
Now as to carburetors. No way. I hate those things. I don't think I could ever hate any car part more than a carb.
First, I always saw them as preposterously inefficient. Which they are compared to ... fuel injection. Ah, I love those words. Fuel injection. Bolt on, bolt off, replace, easy. Clean, simple, and fast.
Second, I don't think I ever got a carb to where I actually liked it. It was always a constant, adjust, readjust, etc.
So you can take those carbs, and I'll take fuel injection any day.
Otherwise, some cars are easy to work on. Some old cars were. Some old cars were a nightmare to work on. Then too it all depended on what it needed.
I remember replacing a Mustang first gear. Wow! what an easy job.
And in more recent years, a Nissan with check engine light. I forget the code. But it took me about 3 or 4 minutes to find a leaky vacuum hose about 3 inches long. And replace.
So I think it can go either way.
I think today the young people are just pathetically lazy, not the ones in the church, but the general population. And not as smart or adaptable as we were (I'm 67 this year). And there is a general idea today, wear out the car, then get a new one.
dc

I think maybe you guys are really talking about collector cars. I know many who are into that. Get an old one, put about $10,000 or $20,000 into it to make it new/pristine. Then sell it. You usually get about 1/2 of what you put into it.

[David13]

Also, in those days you had to get the manual, or figure it out yourself. Which I always could do. Today, all you need is internet access. There is no car type nor car issue type that is not on the internet. With solution.
The last 4 motorcycles I have owned plug into my laptop for diagnosis.
A couple years ago I was on the side of a mountain in Mexico broke down, and put the computer on it which verified what the problem was.
Which the internet (my forum buddies) had already told me what it probably was.
dc

[Teancum]

I gotta jump in too.

I love the older cars, and loved working on them when I didn't have the break everything I touch curse. ;-)
This topic has been on my radar for many years now. It does indeed go much farther and deeper than the OP.

A few years ago there was a govenment program called cash for clunkers. At the time, I advised everyone that I talked to about this program, not to buy into it and to hold onto their older cars. I stated many of the points mentioned in the OPs articles. Deep down inside, I felt that the program was a backdoor way to cripple individual freedom.

I believe that transportation and specifically individual transportation / freedom of movement has been in the crosshairs of the gadiantons for quite a while. For example: Smart cities planning, and the constant surveilance and reading of all license plates, the fuel additives and price fixing of fuel prices.

In my view it mirrors what happened with the original electric car. Please watch this as it is very enlightening. Here is the preview:

Here is the full movie:
Who killed the electric car:http://www.veoh.com/watch/v12581888HJGJyt6s

So basically remove the cars that can be modified, tinkered with, or enhanced in various ways that would throw wrenches into the control workings of the gadiantons. Such modifications or tinkerings include but not limited to:

Enhanced ignition - such as plasma spark, catalytic plugs, timing / fuel air mix combinations.
Hydrogen or HHO boost - improves mileage and power, cleans emissions, and ultimately reduces fuel consumed to just sips.
Autothermia - running cars with no fuel (dissacociation and recombination of nitrogen in the intake air).
Electric conversions or electric driveline additions.

Please see the White Zombie:

So, the real kicker would be circuits that continously recharge and make having those super expensive batteries not needed - supercapacitors.

Most of these things take away the need for the dependence on fuel so subsequently remove the need for wars for oil. So obviously they are a target of COINTELPRO.

One of the latest developments has been the legal challenge by automakers claiming that the cars software is their copyright and so you will only get to lease the car not own it (just like the original electric car - in who killed the electric car?)

[Ezra]

I like working on older vehicles just because they have more room under the hood.

So far this has been my fav vehicle

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_ima ... _large.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gclayjr]

I love the passion that this topic is generating,

DConrad000,

I used to own a 1968 Dodge Super Bee, a cousin to the Road Runner. It had a 383, in it. I saw the picture of the 1972 Road Runner and was going to make a snarky comment about how slow it was, but luckily for me I actually read what you wrote

.sold that and purchased a 1972 Plymouth Roadrunner. I bought a 1968 440 out of a crashed chrysler with 60,000 miles on it for $100, rebuilt it myself and dropped it into the Roadrunner...not much else in the country could touch it...went on a mission to the Netherlands 6 months later. It looked like this, only the color was sky-blue.

Good for you. That made your car what we call a sleeper. Much faster than it looks. I'm sure it would have kicked my Super Bee's butt.

David13,

Now as to carburetors. No way. I hate those things. I don't think I could ever hate any car part more than a carb.
First, I always saw them as preposterously inefficient. Which they are compared to ... fuel injection. Ah, I love those words. Fuel injection. Bolt on, bolt off, replace, easy. Clean, simple, and fast

That olld super bee had a Carter AFB for barrel carburetor, and I did rebuild it, and I have worked on other carburetors. I agree, working on carburetors, is a little bit "Black magic", there are a lot of little parts, and a lot of adjustments that are not always that obvious. There is a lot about modern cars, that make them pretty difficult to work on, but I do agree fuel injectors themselves are generally pretty straightforward. They either squirt or they don't.

Kensurplus,

A few years ago there was a govenment program called cash for clunkers. At the time, I advised everyone that I talked to about this program, not to buy into it and to hold onto their older cars. I stated many of the points mentioned in the OPs articles. Deep down inside, I felt that the program was a backdoor way to cripple individual freedom.

I remember cash for clunkers very well. Before Cash for Clunkers all of my friends knew that I was always looking for my next $500 car. I could buy a $500 car, put maybe a couple of hundred into it and drive it for 3 or 4 years, with minimal maintenance. Almost to the day, after Cash for Clunkers, cars that I would previously buy for $500 were now selling for anywhere from $1500 - $3000. That makes it hard to drive cheaply, even if you are reasonably mechanical.

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

Kennsurplus,

I am not sure what point you are making with the electric car video. I hope you are not going into the conspiracy wacko world here. I know that since oil companies are in the cross hairs, of many conspiracy theorists, all kinds of conspiracies are attributed to them from killing water carburetors, to killing other technology.

I am very familiar with the story of "who killed the electric car" If you are blaming GM for taking back those electric cars and destroying them. Those cars belonged to GM. They were not leased out at anything like "fair market price". It cost GM many times more than the cost of the lease to build the cars. They simply leased them out in order to develop data as to whether this car would be practical. It was determined that they weren't because battery technology, just wasn't there back then.

If you are blaming California for first wasting the tax payers money in promoting the electric car scheme with GM, then after wasting much of the tax payers money on that, becoming fickle and abandoning that in order to start wasting tax payer money on hydrogen cars. I'm with you brother.


By the way on a side note, I have a good friend that owns a Tesla sedan. (I have offered to race him with my TA, but he will only race on a street with a cop on it.

He is passionate about Electric cars in general, and specifically the Tesla. I will admit that the Tesla is a better car than those in your video. However, Tesla has never turned a non government subsidized profit in its life.

He likes to say that his Tesla is cleaner than my TA, and I point out that while my TA runs on Gasoline, most of America's electricity is generated with Coal. SO he burns coal, and I burn Gasoline.

Regards,

George Clay

[dconrad000]

Along the lines of some of what Kensurplus was saying...have you guys seen this?

This starts out in Dutch as the interviewers are Dutch, but they switch over to English when Stanley Meyer comes out. Stanley Meyer then proceeds to show them everything about the car and explains in detail how it works. Goes on to explain his plans to help the people of the world with it, naively thinking the powers-that-be would ever let him do that...not surprising that he was murdered soon after. The car converts the water to hydrogen at the cylinder -- no hydrogen storage necessary. He was working on a low-cost conversion kit for the general public.

[gclayjr]

dConrad000 just made my point,

we both posted at about the same time

I hope you are not going into the conspiracy wacko world here. I know that since oil companies are in the cross hairs, of many conspiracy theorists, all kinds of conspiracies are attributed to them from killing water carburetors, to killing other technology.

I doubt that I will convince you conspiracy theorists of anything sensible, so I will simply point out that the math and science makes the water carburetor ridiculous. A acronym I learned early in Life is

TANSTAAFL (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)

You cannot break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, in order to burn it back into hydrogen and oxygen and create new energy, In fact there will always be losses.

This idea has been repeatedly debunked.

However, It is sad that those who always beat the same drum can take this wonderful thread about how cars today are harder to work on than cars of yesteryear and make it into a tirade about big Oil Company Conspiracies.

So Sad...

Regards,

George Clay

[dconrad000]

Gclayjr, if you care to take the time to watch the two videos, I would be interested to see if that opens your mind up about what can and what cannot be done with respect to hydrogen and water. I can assure you those videos I just posted are not hoaxes, and that will be plainly evident for anyone who cares to take the time to view them. Do you believe that God knows how to efficiently convert water to hydrogen? If so, could your mind be opened to the possibility that He may have inspired this good man, Stanley Meyer?

[David13]

GClay
I'm going to have to agree with you there. I don't believe it.
I do believe in conspiracies. We have been told about them, and I have seen them.
But I don't believe in one great conspiracy that runs everything, and runs it smooth and harmoniously.
I see many different and competing conspiracies, fighting, back biting, and sabotaging each other in any manner possible.
And if that thing worked there would be a conspiracy assembled forthwith to put it out there and in essence take over the world with it.
So I conclude that it won't work since no conspiracy took it and ran with it.
And I also agree that the electric car is a basic sham since most electro comes from coal burning. Which I see as a preposterously inefficient system.
But I also understand that there are hardly any humans on this earth that don't demand sucking up massive quantities of electricity on a daily basis.
I have a tv but it's not hooked up to anything and I haven't turned it on in a year. So how's that for conservation.

Ezra
I can't picture you behind the wheel of that monster truck. It just doesn't fit the image of you I had.

Dave Conrad
I guess I can picture you behind the wheel of a Road Runner with the Chrysler 440, revving the daylights out of it, smoke blowing in all directions, the thing rocking back and forth, and the neighbors complaining about the noise. Maybe even a pack of cigarettes rolled up in the short sleeve of a white t shirt.
But now, I think you've changed a lot since then.

Myself, I was never into muscle cars. But I would work on anything. I wish I could figure out who borrowed my engine hoist and never brought it back.
dc

[dconrad000]

...if that thing worked there would be a conspiracy assembled forthwith to put it out there and in essence take over the world with it.
So I conclude that it won't work since no conspiracy took it and ran with it...

David13, here are my observations with respect to those running the world:

Feudalism has been around for thousands of years. It basically amounts to the power-elite attempting to keep the slaves down. Keep them them living hand-to-mouth, so they don't have the time or resources to resist...and keep their numbers manageable. When there are too many of them, cull them off (genocide). It's been going on forever. It's no different now. The coordinated effort to wreck the country and the economy is by design. It is not incompetence. With those goals in mind it does not make sense to allow the people to prosper...and not having to pay high costs for energy does not fit into that agenda.

The modern-day-secret-combination that exists today is the same one that you read about in the Book of Mormon, that led to the destruction of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and which was prophesied would play a role in latter-day-destruction, as well. The difference is that with our modern technology and travel, it is a global combination -- and more powerful, more advanced than that which existed in the Book of Mormon times. It is inspired by the same being -- Lucifer -- which allows coordination between generations -- 100 and 200-year-goals.

You can read about it here:

(entire book available online)
"None Dare Call It Conspiracy"

http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


President Ezra Taft Benson urged us to read "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" during General Conference, April 6, 1972:

[youtube]pJNMcD2IY_k[/youtube]

Dr Stanley Monteith gives an excellent lecture on the topic here:

[youtube]-YUQcmvItuY[/youtube]

Dr Stanley Monteith interviews Professor Anthony Sutton on the topic here -- also excellent, impeccably documented:

[youtube]j3vZNSAi-QM[/youtube]


Cleon Skousen wrote an excellent book on the topic, entitled, "The Naked Capitalist":

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalist-Commen ... capitalist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



David13, if you care to take the time to watch the two Stanley Meyer videos I posted, I'd be interested to know if what he says and shows makes any sense to you, with respect to the technology he prayerfully received, relative to hydrogen conversion and combustion.

I personally believe that after the cleansing of America that shall occur as described in Cleon Skousen's book, "The Cleansing of America" ( http://www.amazon.com/Cleansing-America ... of+america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) -- and once we are free from the workings of the modern-day-secret-combination that is over us, that was prophesied by Moroni in the Book of Mormon -- once we are free of that and have truly regained our liberty -- we shall be free to pursue Stanley Meyer's discovery and even greater ones relative to energy -- and that will be but one aspect of the great prosperity we will be able to achieve as a righteous and free society.

[gclayjr]

David13,

I also agree that there are conspiracies. I just don't believe many of the conspiracies that are favored by the conspiracy theory crowd. Unfortunately, potential real conspiracies, may not be believed, because of the fervor over all of the crazy ideas. THis carberator thing has been around for awhile. The popular mythbusters tv series took this one on

part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90szKQAjhfo

part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb7vhHK ... aTSS0tfq7Q

Of course one of the wonderful things about these wild conspiracies, is that the more they are disproven, the more it proves how big and powerful, the conspiracy is.

in actuality, human nature makes it so that the bigger and wider a conspiracy is, the more impossible it is to keep it a secret!


Regards,

George Clay