What Bugs Me About the 300

In relation to income?

DAS

--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...........]

...............................

 

Whoa, hey, I'm not the guy who thinks the pinnacle of automotive
design was between '68-'72.

Right, but now using that stuff is like using DOS/running a 286.

Today's cars are technological marvels. Their handling, braking,
acceleration and top speed can rival the race cars of yesterday and
they do it while delivering impressive fuel economy and safety,
squeaky clean tail-pipe emissions and the comfort of your living room.

You don't get the things listed above for free.

In 1/4 mile performance, yeah, they still hang in there.

If you're into shag carpeting, nothing.

I agree with you on this point. Too many "bells and whistles" (I hate
that phrase!) in today's cars. I like the starkness of the old cars,
but I don't miss their cheap gauges/clocks that never worked, poor
ergonomics, terrible defrosting systems, and leaky windows.

That was Detroit's thinking for too long. And at one time or another
(or two) it has almost run each of them out of business. Now days
designing to last until just to the end of the warranty period doesn't
fly. There are too many other players who'll steal/keep your
dissatisfied customers with a better deal.

Patrick

 

They were high 14 second/low 90 mph cars.

There are only a couple faster (his car is like 3rd or 4th fastest)
than his that still sport the stock motor/turbo. And he's only about
2 tenths off the fastest car's time.

Engine wise his is very low buck. Just added boost, larger mass air
meter, exhaust mods and getting 1.6 60-foot times and 12.1 1/4s on
plain old street tires is pretty impressive.

Patrick

 

I just want to know one thing: Why do some manufacturers still build
cars with a roof liner adhesive that fails after so many years, and
others don't have this problem? I used to think they cheaped out on the
lower end products (Cavaliers, etc.) to punish the low-end buyer, but an
'88 Cadillac that I used to own did that. What's up with that!?

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

 

No doubt, but it is all wheel drive.

 

Bill Putney () wrote:

: I just want to know one thing: Why do some manufacturers still build
: cars with a roof liner adhesive that fails after so many years, and
: others don't have this problem? I used to think they cheaped out on the
: lower end products (Cavaliers, etc.) to punish the low-end buyer, but an
: '88 Cadillac that I used to own did that. What's up with that!?

For many years a headliner was held up by rods that extended from side to
side just below the inner roof. The rods were slid into fabric loops sewn
into the underside of the headliner and it was suspended from above.

Sometime in the 70's GM started to experiment, first with perforated
cardboard headliners in Novas and Camaros, then with the foam-backed knit
cloth like in your Cadillac. That material was spray-adhesive attached to
a styrofoam backer and the whole thing was simply held in place by the
side garnish moldings. If you've ever seen one fail, it's not the adhesive
but instead the foam backing on the fabric. The foam simply rots over time
and the whole thing delaminates. Whether they (or anyone) still uses this
method, I dunno.

 

Ah - now that you mention it - that is consistent with what I observed
on the Cadillac and the Cavalier - the foam between the fabric and the
backer board disintegrating. Seems I also remember the liner in a Dodge
Aspen doing the same thing - so it's not just a G.M. thing.

I guess my question is why did some manufacturers apparently not have
the problem (with the foam disintegrating), and others had it for many
many years - like they couldn't learn from the competition (either that,
or it was an intentional planned obsolescence thing).

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

 

Down here is south FL you see the problem in all sorts of cars.
Problem is so prevalent that most any car wash in town will replace
them for less than $100.

Steve B.

 

Yeah - here in VA, you can have it done too - used car dealers and shops
have guys come thru in a van every week or two to handle cars on the lot
or for paying customers at $60-$80 a pop. It just seems that some
brands don't have the problem at all, while it's an "undocumented
feature" on certain brands after so many years. But I guess you're
right - FL would be the real proving grounds for the problem. My point
is that the technical solution is out there - why don't the makers use
it.

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

 

Because they want to bother you.

 

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

It's not the adhesive. The culprit is the thin layer of foam that makes
the headliner feel "cushy." It rots and crumbles, and the fabric lets
go of the hardboard panel it's supposed to be affixed to.

I'm a Cadillac victim, too. A 1979 Eldorado. Not only did the
headliner foam rot out and allow the headliner to droop, but the paint
went bad. The pretty Firemist metallic silver flaked off, down to
primer, and when I got rid of it, we were avoiding washing the car
because every time, more little flakes came off. To make the car safe
to drive (so the driver could see out the back window) we used staples
to hold the headliner to the hardboard liner. It was ugly but it worked.

That car was a real turd. I have never owned another GM product since,
except for a 1963 Corvette that isn't a daily driver.

 

I had the headliner fail on every car I've owned that was more then 10 years old since
1980 models.

The best way I found to prop up the headliner short of replacing the entire headliner or
having an interior shop redo it is by stringing flat plastic paneling trim from home depot
across the headliner in the finish of your choice. Cost me $12 in trim to do this on my 88
New Yorker. Good enough for a car with 99,000 miles.

 

Odd, that. My humble 1993 Merc 190 appears to show no sign of the roof
lining coming off (or have I misunderstood the problem?). Next time I get
in it I check carefully.

DAS

 

Neither did my 1986 Ford Taurus (sorry), which departed to another owner
only about a year ago.

-GP

 

My father's 65 falcon ate valves. His 57 Ford wagon ate starters. In fact
one fell out of the engine on to the street. Clutches didn't last at all in
the old days. Carburators were a PIA in my opinion, especially in cold
climates.

73 was the best year for the Valiant and Dart. My father had a 71 swinger,
73 4 door Plymouth valiant and 75 valiant hard top (same as swinger). The
75 barely drove off the lot. Had to be restarted 3 times.

I prefer the good new days.

 

Habit. I test drove a Malibu Max yesterday. Consumer Reports said the
sedan was a breakthru product competitive with Camry and Accord. So I took
the Maxx version for a spin. Indeed it was the best GM car I've ever been
in. But in the back it has a clear roof with shades for the rear
passengers. The catch for the shades in the car in the showroom didn't work
at all and the one in the car I drove probably wouldn't last a month.
Typcial GM crap. Like I said, habit.

 

Were some of these cars kept in a garage? I suspect that can make a
tremendous difference in how long it takes for heat and sun to degrade foam
and rubber.

 

Art, you don't know what the hell you are talking about and I really wish
you'd quit emitting these baseless factoids. By '73, the materials and
build quality had fallen *well* below the high-water mark which lasted
from '63 to '69. The '70s were only very slightly below this level, the
'71s slightly below the '70s, the '72s slightly below the '71s, and the
'73s substantially below the '72s.

The best sales years for the Dart were '65 and '70, in a near-even tie.
The best brakes were available from late '65 through '72.
The best carburetion was in '70-'71.
The best interior climate control was '68-'72.
The best trunk space was '63-'69 (Dart), '67-'73 (Valiant).
The best bench seats were '63-'66.
The best instrument cluster was '63-'65 (Dart), '62-'64 (Valiant).
The best standard-equipment performance was in '70.
The best factory-optional 6-cylinder performance was from '63 to '70.
The best factory-optional 8-cylinder performance was from '67 to '69.
The highest-performance 6-cylinder was available '60-'62.
The best standard wheels were from '69 to '72.
The thickest, best-rustproofed body metal: '63-'66, then '67-'71.
The best manual transmission and shifter: '64-'65.
The ONLY THING that was the best in '73 was the ignition distributor.
That's *it*.

I say again: You are full of shit.

DS

 

Fords are garbage. This is not news.

I know an original owner of a '63 Valiant V200 convertible in the Denver
area. His car has nearly 200,000 miles on it. It is still on its original
clutch. Perhaps he knows how to drive a stick shift car better than you or
your dad.

Improperly-designed, improperly-adjusted carburetors are indeed a pain in
the ass. Properly-designed, properly-adjusted ones are not.

DS

 

And as we all know, Condemner Retards' words come directly from God.

DS