SVX Network Forums Live Chat! SVX or Subaru Links Old Lockers Photo Post How-To Documents Message Archive SVX Shop Search |
IRC users: |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Maybe this will help...
I'd just like to ramble for a few minutes. I hope this might help change some perspectives...
One thing I've noticed, and not just here, is that quite a number of people expect a lot from a car. Twenty years ago cars rarely hit 80,000 miles without major engine work. Most were scrapped by 100,000. For those that did pass the century mark it was time to celebrate, similar to a mortgage burning (when was the last time anyone heard of one of those? ) Also consider that back then most people actually maintained their cars from time-to-time, more than just an annual trip to McLOF's (lof=lube, oil, filter.) At 60,000 a lot of cars were on their second timing chain, third water pump and rapidly approaching their first valve job. Most already had three tune-ups, a carburetor rebuild, two starters and at least one alternator. The radiator had been rodded once (try to have that done on a car now) and at 100,000 you knew that a new one was in your immediate future. You had already replaced the lower ball joints and idler arm, and someone just told you it was time for your third set of shocks. The knobs on your window cranks had long disappeared and it was time for another trip to Midas. Did you hear the u-joint squeaking when you pulled away from that last stop sign? These days I rarely work on a car with less than 130,000 miles. Most will see over 200,000 with a little care. You don't have it as bad as you thought... Beav By the way, back then automatic transmissions probably averaged 70-80,000 miles, at the high end. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Maybe this will help...
Quote:
Ramble on, bud. That's some good stuff, and oh so true. And, yes, If I had a mortgage, we'd have a mortgage burnin'. I'll just have to settle for a "Note burnin" when I get the SVX paid off.
__________________
Randy Johnson 3rd Registered Member 02-21-2001 First Member to Reach 10,000 Posts First to arrive at the very first Reading Meet Subaru Ambassador 1992 SVX PPG Pace Car Replica 110+k 1993 White Impreza L 240+K miles 2001 Legacy Outback Limited Sedan 250+K miles 2013 Deep Indigo Pearl Legacy 3.6R 49+K miles "Reading is my favorite Holiday" Mike Davis -- at Reading VI |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I agree
Beav, I worked on cars for a living for about ten years,not anymore though. What you said is very true. If everone would really spend some time taking car of today's breed of cars,I think that they would last seemingly forever.
__________________
Mike 92 LSL Teal 103k 00 RS 2.5 Silverthorn Metallic 36k 68 Chevy Camaro 07 Forester XT Sport |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Oh yes, them was the days! A tune-up cost $24.95 including parts. A starter was $40.00 installed. A wheel bearing was $5.00 at J.C. Whitney, & all you needed to install it was a rusty hammer. Of course, you had to do all of this stuff 5 times as often as today.
This also was when $1.10 was minimum wage, a Micky Dee's cheeseburger cost 35 cents, & a long commute was 10 miles. So, I wonder.. what has contributed to the longevity of parts today? Is it better fuel additives, better oil, electronics, or just better manufacturing in general? All you engineers are welcome to explain. Bonus question - who remembers when horsepower ratings changed & why. Winner gets a super sized order of fries at MD's. Oh.. and anyone remember when obesity was rare, except for really, really fat people? Ron.
__________________
Good s**t happened. 69 was worth the wait. '92 stock semi-pristine ebony - 160K '96 Grand Caravan - 240K '01 Miata SE - 79K '07 Chrysler Pacifica - 60k - future money pit. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
hehehehe...
It was a trick post - now we know who all the old farts are...
I would have to say the largest contributing factor to today's automobile longevity is our government. Believe it or not, the Clean Air Act of 1968 is largely responsible. Electronic fuel injection and engine management came about only because the Fed made the manufacturers straighten up. Racing didn't advance technology. Geez, Ford beat the pants off of Enzo with stock blocks running Holleys. Now there's some high tech gear for ya...heheheh. A major by-product of low-pollution engines is they also run cleaner internally. Less fuel in oil contamination meant better lubrication and less friction/wear, less carbon build-up yielded cleaner valves, etc. The ability of modern engines to 'tune' themselves while driving is phenomenal compared to automatic chokes and self-advancing, point-type distributors. Now that the drive trains are lasting longer we couldn't have the bodies rotting off the tires, could we? New methods and techniques have made cars much less rust prone. Who remembers that the first stop for a new car was Ziebart? Who remembers the last time they saw a Ziebart? Didn't the hp ratings change because of Mr. Unsafe with a comb and tie? (Ralph Nader) The ratings were based on engines that were stripped of all ancillary devices - belts, pumps, air filters, exhaust, etc. The new rating was called 'net horsepower', or the actual flywheel hp an engine would produce with all parasitic devices connected and functioning. If I happen to be right I won't hold ya to the fries, my doc would kick my fanny if I plugged up all of this new plumbing. Hmmm...not many guys came back from WWII, Korea or 'Nam carrying any extra weight. A lot of them remembered living (or should I say starving?) through the depression. Women that worked during WWII usually kept somewhat of a figure. Since then I think it's just become a slow slide into complacency. That and we'll always need someone to sing at the end of the show so we know it's over. Beav |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Good try on the horsepower question, beav. In fact, I thought about banning you as a competitor since you've got two strikes in your favor. 1. age. 2 knowledge. But... NO CHLORESTROL FOR YOU!
Unfortunately, all I've got is age. I do believe horsepower ratings got downgraded around '72-'73 when the "measurement" of HP output had to be done at the driving axel, & not at the flywheel. All those 300HP rated muscle cars became 180HP wimps overnight. This had nothing to do with Ralph the Corvair Killer. In fact, I don't recall just what prompted the change. All I know is the SVX's 230 is probably equal to around 320 '60s HP. Anyone else care to supersize that explanation? Ron.
__________________
Good s**t happened. 69 was worth the wait. '92 stock semi-pristine ebony - 160K '96 Grand Caravan - 240K '01 Miata SE - 79K '07 Chrysler Pacifica - 60k - future money pit. Last edited by Ron Mummert; 12-03-2001 at 10:48 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Heheheh...Ron, The Cholesterol Nazi....there's gotta be a joke in there somewhere... I'll throw in the Big Mac (less saturated fat than a quarter pounder) for the best joke.
Ungreased Beav |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I'm feeling terribly anal...
I wasn't sure about Ralphie boy, I just had a hunch that he may have been the one responsible for the reform. However I was fairly certain about the measurements. A quick search yielded an article at Edmunds.com
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/tec...7/article.html) This is the pertinent portion: ....Rex writes: "In your article you are describing net horsepower, taken at the flywheel and wheel hp, taken at the driving wheels. Gross HP is the engine's power in perfect tune, with no accessories on it at all and no mufflers to restrict it, taken at the flywheel. Net Hp is also at the flywheel, but in regular tune with the mufflers in place, and all accessories on it." When it comes to defining gross and net horsepower as the automotive manufacturers measure it, Rex is absolutely correct. Both of these terms refer to how much power is made at the flywheel, while my use of net horsepower referred to what was available at the rear wheels. Checking Webster's New World Dictionary, you'll find that one of the definitions of "net" is "after all considerations; final," which is what I considered wheel-driven horsepower. In my opinion, knowing how much horsepower an engine makes at the flywheel, with or without accessories, is pretty useless since that's not how we, as consumers, use an engine. The point of this column was to illustrate how much variation can exist between the horsepower figure printed in a sales brochure (net horsepower) and how much is available to motivate a vehicle (rear-wheel horsepower). Most of these variations come in the form of driveline loss, which can be substantial depending on the vehicle in question. We will update the "Horsepower" Tech Center to incorporate these terms as established by the automotive manufacturers. Once again: Gross Horsepower: measurement of engine horsepower taken at the flywheel with no engine accessories attached, no restrictive exhaust system, and in a perfect state of tune (useless to the average consumer). Net Horsepower: measurement of engine horsepower taken at the flywheel with engine accessories and exhaust system in place and in a normal or typical state of tune (also useless to the consumer). Driven Wheel or Brake Horsepower: measurement of horsepower taken at the driven wheels on a dynamometer, reflecting how much power is available after an engine's accessories, exhaust system, emission control system and driveline losses have taken affect (very useful to know since it's a realistic measure of horsepower in the real world).... Well, he almost got it all right. Brake horsepower is the measurement taken at the engine shaft, as opposed to 'indicated horsepower' (IHP) which is a measurement of power produced by an individual cylinder, not relating to exertion against a shaft and the resultant frictional losses. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ummm.... so, beav, does this mean you CAN devour chlorestoral after all? To drag out the issue, & I'm NOT an engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but since we now measure HP at the driving wheels, would that 60' Lincoln Limo's 300HP engine now be rated at 100HP, assuming it's RWD; due to the loss of power through a LONG driveshaft? NO FAIR!! Or, if were connected to a FWD set-up, would it now be rated at 400HP?
It SEEMS that the pre '70s measurement was more accurate as an accessment of what the mill was actually crankin' out. Oh, and with AWD, at which end do we measure, or is an average? Ron.
__________________
Good s**t happened. 69 was worth the wait. '92 stock semi-pristine ebony - 160K '96 Grand Caravan - 240K '01 Miata SE - 79K '07 Chrysler Pacifica - 60k - future money pit. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A lot of power is lost on 4 wheel dynos, because of the four contact patches that touch the dyno, as well as drivetrain factors, I believe. As for what we currently use, it's power at the flywheel, what Beav was saying. The accessories drain a decent amount of power from the engine.. but not as much as some people think, I believe. I know that some car that was dynoed lost about 13 hp once the air conditioner was turned on, though. With RWD and FWD cars, I'm not sure about the details. I'm guessing that FWD cars lose less power through the drivetrain, etc. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
I believe that the only reason anyone ever measured power at the rear wheels was because it was easier than pulling the engine. You wouldn't want to yank the engine when you changed the intake manifold and tossed on a set of headers. Chassis dynos became popular with the public for that reason. Mechanics liked them because they could test their work in the shop and get an accurate record. This was great for driveability problems and figuring out advance curves, jetting, etc.
However rear wheel horsepower at the manufacturer's level would be a pain because one type engine could be installed into a lot of different cars. Even the installation into one model would result in a vast array of numbers - imagine a two barrel 351 in an F-100. One hp rating for a 3 spd w/3.54,3.71,4.09 gears, a 4spd, a C-4 a/t, 6.5' or 8' box (driveshaft lengths and also could have one or two-piece shaft) with Firestone or Goodyear tires (weight), etc. Rear wheel horsepower is a good comparative tool but too individualized. Beav |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
- Sound of horse being whipped - OK... So are "we" saying that ONLY Subaru is dyno-ing at the flywheel, or are ALL cars now doing it? And if so, were the '70s rules changed again & if so, when? Phew!
Ron.
__________________
Good s**t happened. 69 was worth the wait. '92 stock semi-pristine ebony - 160K '96 Grand Caravan - 240K '01 Miata SE - 79K '07 Chrysler Pacifica - 60k - future money pit. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Yak!
This thread reminded me that when I was a teenager, my Dad used to make me change the muffler when it rusted, a fairly frequent occurence. Crawl under the car (no lift, not even any ramps), and bang the old one off with a hammer. Flakes of rust in the eyes and mouth. Yak!!
80000 miles? You hardly considered a long trip without anticipating some sort of repair job. Yeah, they're a lot better now. Guess I'm really showing my age.
__________________
bill Green 95 SVX - Cleo Green 97 Outback - Maxine Red F-150 Extended Cab Long Bed - Big Boy Even the best monkey sometimes drops his banana. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
To tell ya the truth Ron I haven't paid much attention to who uses what for the past several years. It used to be that the european community used DIN horsepower, the far east another method and we grabbed whatever was left. As far as I know all automobile and truck ratings are taken from the flywheel. Farm tractors usually have a shaft and a drawbar rating.
The main things to remember are hp=speed, torque=acceleration, weight=slow and size does matter. Beav |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Wasn't it Volvo who was the first automaker to put a 100,000 mile odomoter (sp?) on cars sold in the US? Even in the 80's, many american cars didn't have a spot for 100,000 while almost all Japanese automakers did. We have to thank the Toyotas and Hondas of the world for raising the quality standards of American cars. Competition is a bi--h!
As for rusting mufflers, I remember my dad used to use juice cans to wrap around all the holes in the muffler. It was a temporary patch for people on a budget Jeff
__________________
Jeff - Tampa, FL - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|