Bring back the station wagon!

What a way to speak to someone just stating facts which are true.
Early Chev 6 cyl engines did rely on splash lube to the piston rod
bearings. A very crude lube technique, which GM used far too long.
If you had taken one apart it should have been obvious, if your eyes
were open.

 

There are, last I looked, only about half a dozen cars sold today that
require 91 average octane fuel, the Corvette being one of them, along
with some imported exotics. There is NO reason to burn premium fuel
in ANY ordinary new car, despite the rantings and ravings of imbeciles
like Charlie Nudo. I've talked to people at the islands filling their
gas hog Suburbans up with premium, and when you challenge their
assertion that somehow premium is "better," they become extremely
defensive. I call it the new American "proud to be stupid" illness
now holding firm to the country's populace.

 

Fortunately not, I haven't heard of that possible problem.
I'm not concerned because my garage floor is still free of leak stains.

What maintenance practices would cause transaxle leaks?[/QUOTE]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Front seal problems are not at
all common on the 42LE tranny. I say that as an owner of two LH cars
and a long-time frequenter of 2 LH-specific forums.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Is that the best you can do?

Matt

 

He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but likes to talk a good
game. Things I found him doing to a few of his cars:

- Mixing transmission fluid types. The M-body I got from him had a
rough applying TCC...turned out, he had "topped it up" with Type F
he'd had sitting in the garage for years. "It's all the same stuff,"
was his mantra. Completely draining, flushing and refilling with
ATF+3 cured the problem and the A-904 has been trouble free since.

- Never changing transmission fluid. "It's still pretty red...."

- "Forgetting" oil change intervals. "I think I changed it...uhhh..."

- Never changing anti-freeze. "It's permanent anti-freeze."

....and on and on. You also cannot "tell him anything." Of course,
he's a Republican.

The Concorde he had was doing fine until he decided that the fluid was
"low" (he misread the stick) and then dumped some ancient Dexron into
it. The leaks appeared about 4K miles later, become quite serious in
short order. Reason: eaten front seal. I saw the container of the
Dexron he used...it wasn't even Dexron II, and it came in a CAN!!!
Later, he admitted that he got a bunch of oil and fluid at a garage
sale. A case of ARCO "Graphite" 10W-40, anyone?

The shift quality had also deteriorated considerably. When he showed
me what he'd added to it, I'd exclaimed, "That fluid has to be 30
years old and is the wrong type!!" His response, "Well...it's still
red...and it's all the same stuff. They just make different types to
get more money." He wanted to take it to SCAAMCO ("They're cheaper.")
until I told him absolutely not. I worked with the owner of the local
SCAAMCO franchise, and knew he and most of his staff are complete
ignoramuses about transmissions. He only bought the place as an
investment. Off to an independent shop it went for a front seal and
flush, and he did get lucky...after a refill of ATF+3, it functioned
perfectly and leaks were gone. Not long after that, he sold the car
(I politely refused to buy it, knowing his penchant for such faux pas)
and he got a used Cadillac, which didn't fare all that well either,
again due to ham fisted simple maintenance. The thing I remember
about the '97 Cadillac: "That Check Engine light just is a way for
them to make more money. It's OK." Yeah..the fuel economy dropped
from 17 average to 11, and it wouldn't pass smog. "It's OK." After
changing out O² and thermal sensors, as well as a plugged air filter,
defective plug wires and new platinum plugs, economy went back up
again...and then he sold that! Did I mention the 12K mile oil change
interval and the black "ook" that came out of the pan?

Now, he's trying to destroy a 2003 Merc Marquis, and his lead foot
kraut wife is doing a bang-up job on that. He got a leaky bottom hose
on the radiator, and just added tap water after replacing the hose.
"It's OK...it's still green." My wife was savvy enough to warn me off
of buying his Concorde, for which I'll be forever grateful. What made
him sell the Concorde was the typical bad position sensor, which is
quite common on those for losing magnetism. It left him stranded one
day, he had it towed, they replaced the sensor, all was well, but he
didn't trust any car "that has magnets to work!" Hopefully, he'll
quit driving this year when he flunks his eye exam.

Unfortunately, he bought a '55 T-Bird near basket case as a
"restoration project," and that's going further downhill every time I
see it. Latest screw-up: "Those valves are too noisy, so I adjusted
them." Unfortunately, he got the firing order backward and now half
the exhaust valves are hanging open and it won't start. I refuse to
help, because explaining fact to him is like trying to explain good
Usenet behavior to Charlie Nudo.

 

"Stove bolt" Chevies were good for about 50K miles before things
started coming apart. Going to full pressure and partial filtration
(but stil a "bird screen" air cleaner) lengthened their service life
quite a bit in '54, and they kept the same obsolete 1930s engine
around until '63, when it was replace by the modern 230.

This wasn't just a Chevrolet cheapness, either. GM kept selling
obsolete Winton (rebadged to "GM Diesel") 2 stroke diesels for
generator set and marine service until 1960! The Winton 251A was
basically a bored and stroked 201A from the LATE TWENTIES...no oil
filters, a screen for a fuel filter, and a piece of stucco mesh for an
"air cleaner." After 1959, due to custsomer complaints, they finally
replaced the 251A-based generator and marine engines with Detroit
Diesels, since they'd finally "perfected" a V8 2 stroke in 1958, the
8V71, which soon grew into V12 and V16, as well as shrunk to V6 and V4
variants simply by adding or chopping off cylinders. A 16V71 was
simply two 8V71s "glued together" using a long, fragile crankshaft.

"GM..the best there is," says Charlie Nudo Deludo. HAH!

 

And he just proved it with his reply. Obviously he just likes to hear
himself talk - has nothing to do with trying to help with your problem.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Visit your Dodge dealer and buy one.

 

Have you tried driving one? It is way underpowered. But I believe Chrysler
plans a new engine for the next version.

 

DeserTBob is right. The '80's Hyundai's were terrible cars. I knew several
that had those little Excel's and they were in the shop as much as on the
road. Horrible little things. I actually think the Vega was a better car,
you make reference to. However Hyundai has made quite the turn around. And
apparently think their cars are worth the 10 yr/100k warranty. They did
recently go in with Mitsu and Chrysler on a joint engine which will be used
across all three marks. Chrysler is already using it in the Caliber. I
don't think Chrysler would but their neck on the line with these two makes
if some sort of reliability issue wasn't addressed. I personallly wouldn't
hesitate to buy a Chrysler or Hyundai with these engines. Personally don't
care for Mitsu.

========================

 

I rent lots of cars and have had a number of Pacifica's as rentals.
Extremely nice car. Would love to have one. They definitely aren't road
rockets but the creature comforts inside make the trip a nice one. I would
have one but the close to $40k sticker is a bit much for me.
Wagon...SUV...mini-van...what the heck, it's like all 3 rolled into one.
Still a nice vehicle. I was impressed.

=================

 

Now that's saying something, indeed! You are correct, however, that
Hyundais spent probably as much time in the shop as did pre-Ford Jags.
I had a guy who worked for me that fell for the Hyundai ad hype and
got saddled with one. After three years of torture, horrid dealer
support and even worse manufacturer support, he finally flooded the
thing with kerosene and burned it to a crisp. In 48K miles, it had
gone through 3 engines, 2 transmissions, 5 sets of wheels bearings, 3
steering racks, countless front struts and 10 sets of tires due to
inability to hold a toe set. As to whether which is better...an Excel
or Vega...that will be lost to history. I remember the Vega fiasco
well, and especially remember seeing one scatter is entire engine all
over the CA-91 freeway going 70 MPH. Impressive, to say the least,
but very messy. The burning fuel, smoking oil and fireball coming
from underneath the car looked like a special effect.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on anything Hyundai. They
HAD to offer a 100K warranty; their old reputation still festers in
the minds of many with half a brain. You're well to avoid anything
Mitsubishi, though. They cannot build a successful engine, either. I
remember one guy who just put in his third engine in a Mitsu pickup,
and celebrated by peeling a few of the stick-on letters off the tail
gate and rearranging them. What it wound up reading was: ITS SHIT
After getting local press coverage, Mitsubishi offered to buy the
truck back for over high book and pay off his loan to avoid further
embarassment and prosecution under California's "lemon law." My
stepkid's bonehead wife also fell for the Galant, and it was 30K
before it collapsed a piston...first of three. He simply drove it
back to the credit union, left the payment coupons on the front seat,
went in to the loan officer and said, "Here...it's yours. I'm only a
staff sergeant and can't afford to keep it running. Have fun."

 

I'd opine that certain people here need excessive power as some sort
of "prick entension." ALL cars sold in the US, with the exception of
the base, bone stock subcompacts, are simply overpowered, period.

 

Your story is quite "unbelievable"!

 

How so? At least he bothered to CHECK the fluid level, even if
incorrectly, which most dumbbell Americans WON'T do. End result was
the same, but...at least he tried! However, using 30 year old fluid
gotten out of someone's garage sale wasn't exactly a bright move, but
one typical of him.

 

Yes the Vega was better but that's not saying much. Those early
Hyundai's were prone to very quick body rust out.
In Canada (late 80s I believe) Hyundai got into trouble when ads on our
CBC TV saying Hyundai got a top award for quality, turned out to be a
phony Hyundai paid for story.
My neighbors son had a V6 Vega and couldn't get it to idle smoothly.
I advised him not to waste his time trying to tune the rough idle out;
that V6 was a cut down 90° V8 with unequal firing angles. What a piece
of junk, something kids would hack together in the back yard. GM has
been selling crap for quite some time, finally it has caught up with
them.
GM design(?) even got a mention here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Monza
I was a GM buyer and fan, but changed in the 70s when I bought a
Datsun 510 rather than a Vega. Lucky decision. <

I hope Hyundai was confined to designing the air filter.

 

I'll pass, even though they are being cleared out at very attractive
prices, well below the list price you state.
I pay for my own fuel and drive 75% in the city.

 

That would've been an Astre, eh? They used the 90° V6?? By around
'77 (can't remember), the Buick 231 had been refitted with offset
crankpins, which made even firing possible, but both the 198 and 231s
prior to that had a horrid idling roughness. V6 Vegas never saw the
light of day down south.

No lie there!

Those old 510s were long lived buggers, even with the tinny bodies and
cheesy interiors. The Ajin Precision OHC engine was far better than
anything any American manufacturer could produce. Datsun OHC engines
could easily do 300K miles, ditto the 6 cylinder variant in the Z
cars.

I share your pessamism. If you know anything about Koreans and Korean
culture, you know they're some of the biggest fraudsters on earth.
Anything from Korea...stay WAY away.

 

Ah yes...the ridiculously badly designed H-bodies. What turkeys they
were! I had a neighbor who bought the Starfire variant, hoping for
similar performance from it the he got from his original '63 Jetfire.
he didn't get it. What he got was a rough idling Buick V6 that barely
got 20 MPG on the road and a car that rode like a buckboard and seated
2, at the most. The back seat was even smaller than the one in my '70
Maverick that got me through college.

The H-body was yet another GM design screwup. Although they were
developing their own Wankel engine (another failure), no one bothered
to tell GM brass that their Wankel was even less efficient than
Mazda's gas guzzler RX-2. I remember driving an RX-2 of an Air Force
pal back then and marveling at the power...and at fuel economy WORSE
than a Cadillac 472! The oil embargo of '74 woke GM up on that, but
the car was already too far along down GM's horrendously long model
design cycle, so they shoved existing engines in it. So, they wound
up with a car that was too small inside, too small under the hood and
too big on the outside that got bad fuel economy at the time when the
Japanese were hitting 41 MPG ('76 B-210 "Super Bee" 5 speed with a
1400cc Ajin Precision pushrod engine).

Yeah, Nudo..."GM #1!" In failures, maybe.

Also, up in Canada, I remember you had those Pontiacs with Chevy drive
trains, eh...sort of like a "step up" car with a "step down" engine
and transmission!

 

You're close, but it was the reverse.
My father had a CDN '49 Pontiac, which was the Chev body with the flat
head Pontiac 6 cyl with Pontiac grill.
Got lots of comments on that car on trips to the USA.
It was a great reliable engine. I bought it and sold it at 100K miles
sill going strong with no internal engine work.
Fuel mileage was another thing, but I learned how to improve it with a
carb rebuild. It had a rod going through a fuel jet, which would wear
and richen the mixture. A design to make you unhappy every few years.