KymcoForum.com

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Paul on October 08, 2017, 01:31:51 PM

Title: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 08, 2017, 01:31:51 PM
I recently was in the market for a new car. It seems that many auto makers have changed to smaller engines, turbo-chargers, and CVT transmissions in order to get an extra couple of miles per gallon. I do not like this trend because;

1. Even though the mpg is better, you pay more for premium so the cost to operate is more.

2. Turbos add more heat and complexity to the system and probably will cost more to maintain.

3. My mechanic says the CVT transmissions are not as reliable as the previous types. So a rebuild/replace is likely down   the road.

In short, the cost to own and maintain these new vehicles is FAR HIGHER than the older ones. As for us, we purchased a well maintained low mileage 2012 with a 6-speed tranny and a 87 octane fuel-injected V-6. Like many things, seems like the older ones are better.  ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: CROSSBOLT on October 08, 2017, 06:50:35 PM
Stig always said you were a pretty bright guy! No commas, Mr. Paul!

Karl
 
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 08, 2017, 08:03:14 PM
Stig always said you were a pretty bright guy! No commas, Mr. Paul!

Karl



Good one Karl! No commas indeed!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 08, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
I completely understand your thinking Mr. Paul. Give me a new Ford or Chevy from the 60's and life would be much better. However the EPA and other government agencies have decided to save us, even if they have to kill us to do so. I can remember when a small 4 cylinder engine was doing good to wring out 100 BHP. Now a 4 cylinder IL can be made to produce well over 500 ponies. Of course that's with the addition of  double OHC, 4 Valves, and VVT and a turbo charger.All though the difference is much as the difference between the Mayflower and the Interprise. The later is much more precision built with computer controlled milling machines and SPT control limitations, but they won't last as long, because 1. they cram way to much into those small cylinders and 2. those kinds of engine are used mostly by young folk who want to go fast, at any cost. They have V6's capable of putting out over 700 hp. Remarkable. They all require premium fuel. Some race engines use 110 and 120 ave gas.
Such as NASCAR.   Old is better, but new is what sells. Speed cost, the question is how fast do you want to go? (Not that fast, right---me neither.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 08, 2017, 10:51:49 PM
I completely understand your thinking Mr. Paul. Give me a new Ford or Chevy from the 60's and life would be much better. However the EPA and other government agencies have decided to save us, even if they have to kill us to do so. I can remember when a small 4 cylinder engine was doing good to wring out 100 BHP. Now a 4 cylinder IL can be made to produce well over 500 ponies. Of course that's with the addition of  double OHC, 4 Valves, and VVT and a turbo charger.All though the difference is much as the difference between the Mayflower and the Interprise. The later is much more precision built with computer controlled milling machines and SPT control limitations, but they won't last as long, because 1. they cram way to much into those small cylinders and 2. those kinds of engine are used mostly by young folk who want to go fast, at any cost. They have V6's capable of putting out over 700 hp. Remarkable. They all require premium fuel. Some race engines use 110 and 120 ave gas.
Such as NASCAR.   Old is better, but new is what sells. Speed cost, the question is how fast do you want to go? (Not that fast, right---me neither.


Its more fun to go fast in a slow vehicle than to go slow in a fast one!
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 09, 2017, 01:36:16 AM
Yelp, I'm with you.
Title: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 09, 2017, 07:24:15 AM
I work at FORD.
1. While premium is “recommended “ for MAXIMUM power, it’s not required. And the loss in power is minimal. In fact, most don’t notice much difference. I’d say that 95% of the owners use regular which is acceptable by Ford. Almost every engine built in the last 20 years is equipped with a knock sensor. So for the most part, spark knock is a thing of the past unless premium is REQUIRED, and the customer uses regular. But as stated earlier, premium is not required for most engines. Turbo or not.

2. Turbos are more complex and add more heat. But the engines have oil coolers. And smart oil life meters which indicate the oil change intervals based on YOUR driving conditions. Most customers require an oil change around 6000 miles. The new turbos are light years ahead of the trouble prone turbos of the 70’s and 80,s. We’ve already seen some with over 100,000 trouble free miles . I expect them to greatly exceed that.
3.While some manufacturers are moving towards cvt’s Ford does NOT use them and has not since their disaster in some of their 2003-2006 models. They do have a trouble prone dual clutch automatic. But they don’t use it in ANY of their turbocharged vehicles . But rather they use a beefed up version of their transmissions used in the base engines. So far, very reliable.

4 . Maintenance costs are NO DIFFERENT unless they break down which is rare as far as the engines and transmissions.

Trans fluid changes at 100k , NO external fuel filter. , hoses commonly last for well over 100k. Belt service interval is 100k . Most still look good even then. . Coolant 150k. Spark plugs 100k . No plug wires.

Truth be told, we mechanics are not making the money we used to make because the cars simply are more reliable than in the past. AND there is hardly any maintenance required.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 09, 2017, 07:29:38 AM
As for emissions, I simply love the low emissions. We can have several cars inside the shop running at the same time with the shop doors closed in winter. And we will LITERALLY have to be reminded to turn the shop exhaust fans on because we simply don’t smell ANY exhaust fumes. NOR do we feel ill.

Regulations seem to be a pain unless you see the benefits like we do. Being able to BREATHE while working on a running vehicle inside a building is a beautiful thing. [emoji3][emoji3]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 09, 2017, 09:34:14 AM
I work at FORD.
1. While premium is “recommended “ for MAXIMUM power, it’s not required. And the loss in power is minimal. In fact, most don’t notice much difference. I’d say that 95% of the owners use regular which is acceptable by Ford. Almost every engine built in the last 20 years is equipped with a knock sensor. So for the most part, spark knock is a thing of the past unless premium is REQUIRED, and the customer uses regular. But as stated earlier, premium is not required for most engines. Turbo or not.

2. Turbos are more complex and add more heat. But the engines have oil coolers. And smart oil life meters which indicate the oil change intervals based on YOUR driving conditions. Most customers require an oil change around 6000 miles. The new turbos are light years ahead of the trouble prone turbos of the 70’s and 80,s. We’ve already seen some with over 100,000 trouble free miles . I expect them to greatly exceed that.
3.While some manufacturers are moving towards cvt’s Ford does NOT use them and has not since their disaster in some of their 2003-2006 models. They do have a trouble prone dual clutch automatic. But they don’t use it in ANY of their turbocharged vehicles . But rather they use a beefed up version of their transmissions used in the base engines. So far, very reliable.

4 . Maintenance costs are NO DIFFERENT unless they break down which is rare as far as the engines and transmissions.

Trans fluid changes at 100k , NO external fuel filter. , hoses commonly last for well over 100k. Belt service interval is 100k . Most still look good even then. . Coolant 150k. Spark plugs 100k . No plug wires.

Truth be told, we mechanics are not making the money we used to make because the cars simply are more reliable than in the past. AND there is hardly any maintenance required.



Thanks for the input Forbes! Glad to hear at least Ford has held off on the CVT transmissions. You in a way illustrated my point. Dual clutch=excessive complexity=increased unreliability. There seems to be a point with these systems that the increase in performance is offset by the decrease in reliability. I have purchased a year and model car that has all of the advantages you have stated but there is no turbo to fail, there are no CVT issues, and there is no requirement for premium fuel. I guess what I am saying is that from an engineering perspective, given the same quality, that the more systems that are involved there are more opportunities for costs and failure. Sometimes the latest is not always the greatest. It seems as if the auto makers are being forced to using smaller, harder working engines and less reliable transmissions in order to meet the newest CAFE standards.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 09, 2017, 04:56:43 PM
In response to your post, Forbes, concerning Fords and their use of the CVT transmissions. FYI: The Ford Fusion for the years 2018 and 2019 are and will be available with a CVT transmission as well as a 6 speed automatic and the Ford C-Max, same years, will only come with a CVT transmission. ( Information supplied by Motor Trend, Sept. 2017, Vol. 69, No. 9)
I have owned three Infixiti cars and all three would throw a VVT code if run on even one tank of regular gasoline. I now own a 2014 Nissan Altima with the 2.5L IL four that will run on regular.
These vehicles were driven by my wife and she chose the Nissan as her preferred choice. I am a Ford guy. My wife and I was raised in Ford families. I have a 2005 150 XLT that has been bullet proof from day one, except for the spark plug issue
My 2014 Altima with Pure Drive CVT calls for an CVT oil analysis at 60,000 miles and if no contamination is found, then no further service is require. Ever. CTV lifespan approximates that of the engine. So Nissan says. We'll see.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: gregspeople250 on October 09, 2017, 10:09:02 PM
Please, cars from the '60's and '70's were prehistoric compared to what we have today.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 09, 2017, 11:04:53 PM
Please, cars from the '60's and '70's were prehistoric compared to what we have today.




I was trying to point out that it seems that the 2017 automobile line will generally prove to be less reliable and more costly to own than recent years of the same models.  I was disappointed to come to the conclusion that the new car I wanted would not be as good as one a couple or few years old. However, there were some fine cars produced in the 60s and 70s. But they were of their own era.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 09, 2017, 11:34:50 PM
Mr. Paul. With all due respect, I'm a mechanic at a Ford dealership. The ONLY vehicles that EVER had a true cvt were the now discontinued Ford 500 all wheel drive. And the Ford Freestyle . They WERE JUNK. They only made the cvt for a few years then went with the 6 speed across the board. The "cvt" you mention is ONLY available in the HYBRID editions of those vehicles. The fusion NEVER had a cvt with the conventional or Turbo engines. By the way, that cvt operates in a different manner than other cvts. And it is actually more reliable than a conventional transmission evidenced by the fact that Ford warranties it for 100,000 MILES as opposed to 60,000 miles for the others. (other manufacturers have similar warranties). But the ONLY transmission available in the turbo or conventional fusions are the 6 speed automatics. I admit that I was very skeptical of the more complex engines and transmissions. But the proof is in the pudding. They simply don't break down as much as older vehicles. It's common to go 100,000 miles with ZERO engine or transmission problems. MOST PROBLEMS today are electrical. And many engine and transmission drivability issues are repaired with a simple software update.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 09, 2017, 11:49:11 PM
The dual clutch automatic is actually a  manual transmission made to operate automatically. It has no hydraulics, It's all mechanical. The problems with it stem from the fact that the clutch (made just like a manual transmission clutch) is faulty. But Ford wisely limits those transmissions to only the Fiesta and the Focus. I admit that I was VERY skeptical of the Turbos at first. But now I'm a believer. Yes, there is more to break. But the truth is that they don't break as often. However I FULLY admit that if they DO break, repairs are much more expensive. I concede that. But I'm simply amazed at the reliability of MOST modern vehicles conventional Or turbo. And as I stated earlier. Premium fuel is NOT required for the Ford turbo vehicles. But it's recommended if you want to get the last drop of power out of them. I really don't know of ANY of our customers who use premium fuel in their Turbo equipped Fusions, Escapes, Explorers or Tauruses. It's simply not needed . That's why its only a recommendation vs a requirement. With the Ford f150, the sales of the Turbo engines exceed that of the v8. Many of our customers were VERY skeptical at first. But those who buy one Turbo equipped truck usually buy another.  But I recommend avoiding ANY new engine in it's first year of production because that's when they have the growing pains.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Iahawk on October 09, 2017, 11:54:52 PM
I think we sometimes get nostalgic when thinking about the older cars (I know I do)...but have you looked at the maintenance schedule for the oldies? I have the site saved on a diff computer...but it links to all the Chevy owners manuals from the 40's through the 60's...wow, did they require a lot of service! Like every 1000 or few thousand miles on a ton of different things...oil, wheel bearing grease, coolant changes twice yearly..the service requirements compared to modern cars were ridiculous!

My father and grandfather owned a large Chevy dealership in the 50's and the service dept was crazy busy. Now I know why.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 10, 2017, 12:13:02 AM
The dual clutch automatic is actually a  manual transmission made to operate automatically. It has no hydraulics, It's all mechanical. The problems with it stem from the fact that the clutch (made just like a manual transmission clutch) is faulty. But Ford wisely limits those transmissions to only the Fiesta and the Focus. I admit that I was VERY skeptical of the Turbos at first. But now I'm a believer. Yes, there is more to break. But the truth is that they don't break as often. However I FULLY admit that if they DO break, repairs are much more expensive. I concede that. But I'm simply amazed at the reliability of MOST modern vehicles conventional Or turbo. And as I stated earlier. Premium fuel is NOT required for the Ford turbo vehicles. But it's recommended if you want to get the last drop of power out of them. I really don't know of ANY of our customers who use premium fuel in their Turbo equipped Fusions, Escapes, Explorers or Tauruses. It's simply not needed . That's why its only a recommendation vs a requirement. With the Ford f150, the sales of the Turbo engines exceed that of the v8. Many of our customers were VERY skeptical at first. But those who buy one Turbo equipped truck usually buy another.  But I recommend avoiding ANY new engine in it's first year of production because that's when they have the growing pains.




I have major respect for you Forbes! I too am amazed at the reliability of the newer vehicles. Its just that I choose to have tried and true fuel injection, a trusty 6 speed tranny, and an engine large enough to be understressed in most situations. In my opinion this is the best combination for longevity and cost of ownership. In my experience turbos have more problems and are more expensive to operate than EFI. And the CVT trannies as a group are still getting the bugs worked out. Ford may absolutely be an exception to this. I bow to your expertise with them sir.  :)

Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 10, 2017, 09:48:13 AM

There is a lot to be said for the tried and true. You can’t go wrong. As for cvt transmissions , I agree that they are quite there yet. But my main problem with them is that I just can’t get used to the sound of the engine . It sounds like the scooters where the engine revs up and the speed of the car catches up with it. I had a cousin trade his brand new cvt equipped car in and get one with a conventional transmission for that reason. He couldn’t get over the feeling that the transmission was slipping. Lol.

Ford decided to continue production of their 5.0 v8 alongside the slightly more powerful twin turbo v6 for their f150 for the foreseeable future just for the traditional person who simply wouldn’t buy a v6 equipped truck as the top engine choice. They aren’t about to risk losing sales just to make a point. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 10, 2017, 03:34:56 PM
I love Fords. I was raised being told that a Ford was the only car to have, and it stuck. With that said, Ford has put out a fair share of problematic vehicles, as have GM and Mopar. In recent memory, The 4.0 with 3 cam/timing chains and the Tritan with the spark plug issues and some, not so good conventional auto trannies. GM has had their's and Mopar are, well, TNTM (to numerous to mention), and all have produced, as you said, just plain junk. Motor Trend said a few years back that the Fusion was on track to be on par withe Camry. While a very good car, for Ford, they haven't caught up with the Camry. About three or four years ago Consumer Reports rated the two best cars in the world, tied for first place, the Honda Fit and the Toyota Corolla, over all. And just as a side note, for my money ,,the Ford Mustang is the Baddest and best looking car on planet Earth, bar none.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Stig / Major Tom on October 10, 2017, 05:47:14 PM
Used to think I'd want an old, restored, VW Beetle...now I'd rather have an '06 Scion xB.
My son had one of these great first gen. Scions until a drunk totalled it while parked. ABS, traction control, FWD, huge volume, 33mpg's from the 1.3 litre injected engine no matter how it was thrashed. Underside looked 6 mos old ..never rusted.
Of course Toyota corporate wisdom cancelled the Scion line.....though they never spent a dime on advertising. Consistantly rated higher than the hugely advertised Soul, or the Cube.
Son's was approaching 200,000 miles when it was murdered.
Oil changes , tires and 4 Iridium NGK's was all it needed.
Stig
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: gregspeople250 on October 10, 2017, 05:59:08 PM
If you want to see a CVT that will live a very long time with no belts and very little maintenance, check out the Prius drive system. Gears only. Running in oil that's to be changed every ~125K (at least that's what I've done on my '06 with 260K miles).
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 10, 2017, 08:48:33 PM
If you want to see a CVT that will live a very long time with no belts and very little maintenance, check out the Prius drive system. Gears only. Running in oil that's to be changed every ~125K (at least that's what I've done on my '06 with 260K miles).



That sounds like a better CVT system Greg! Gears bathed in oil, I can relate to that. :)
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 10, 2017, 08:55:46 PM
If the sound of a car with CVT bothers someone, then they need not ever buy an electric car. However, there is hope. There's a place in CA. that sells what they call a VARoooooooooM Box About  $150. for the box, which mounts in the dash, and the sound selector panel which mounts under the dash or on the console. It has 12 sound selections. Everything from a moped to a mopar stroker, or a Indy open wheel car. Not a bad price, until you add the speakers, which they do not sell You will need 2 8" mid rage and 2 8" sub woofers, and 400 watt amp, with speakers preferably mounted in the boot. They fit perfectly in the spare tire well of a Mustang. I talked to a kid who had that set-up. Said he loved to pull up to a red light with the stroker sound on and pick a race with a muscle car and when the light changed , flip over to the moped sound and pull off real slow... The sound box has a vacuum line from the engine that allows the speaker sound to match the car's revs. Neat 0 This is not a joke. The engine sound simulator at VARooooooMbox.com
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 11, 2017, 03:47:58 AM
If you want to see a CVT that will live a very long time with no belts and very little maintenance, check out the Prius drive system. Gears only. Running in oil that's to be changed every ~125K (at least that's what I've done on my '06 with 260K miles).
That’s the same design that The Ford And CMax hybrids use. Gears only. I think I saw ONE that had to be replaced. And it was later found out that the noise was coming from somewhere else. Thankfully, the customer did not have to pay for that expensive experiment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 11, 2017, 03:48:58 AM


That sounds like a better CVT system Greg! Gears bathed in oil, I can relate to that. :)
The same system used on the hybrid fusion and cmax.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 11, 2017, 03:56:25 AM
If the sound of a car with CVT bothers someone, then they need not ever buy an electric car. However, there is hope. There's a place in CA. that sells what they call a VARoooooooooM Box About  $150. for the box, which mounts in the dash, and the sound selector panel which mounts under the dash or on the console. It has 12 sound selections. Everything from a moped to a mopar stroker, or a Indy open wheel car. Not a bad price, until you add the speakers, which they do not sell You will need 2 8" mid rage and 2 8" sub woofers, and 400 watt amp, with speakers preferably mounted in the boot. They fit perfectly in the spare tire well of a Mustang. I talked to a kid who had that set-up. Said he loved to pull up to a red light with the stroker sound on and pick a race with a muscle car and when the light changed , flip over to the moped sound and pull off real slow... The sound box has a vacuum line from the engine that allows the speaker sound to match the car's revs. Neat 0 This is not a joke. The engine sound simulator at VARooooooMbox.com
I admit that in the cvt equipped vehicles, the engine sound takes getting used to, especially under hard acceleration. The engine just revs to the rpm’s where the most power is produced and just stays there until the car catches up, or until you ease off the accelerator. The car may be quick. But in your mind, the transmission is slipping.
If I owned one, I’d take off at full acceleration just to hear the engine rev. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 11, 2017, 04:04:57 AM
I love Fords. I was raised being told that a Ford was the only car to have, and it stuck. With that said, Ford has put out a fair share of problematic vehicles, as have GM and Mopar. In recent memory, The 4.0 with 3 cam/timing chains and the Tritan with the spark plug issues and some, not so good conventional auto trannies. GM has had their's and Mopar are, well, TNTM (to numerous to mention), and all have produced, as you said, just plain junk. Motor Trend said a few years back that the Fusion was on track to be on par withe Camry. While a very good car, for Ford, they haven't caught up with the Camry. About three or four years ago Consumer Reports rated the two best cars in the world, tied for first place, the Honda Fit and the Toyota Corolla, over all. And just as a side note, for my money ,,the Ford Mustang is the Baddest and best looking car on planet Earth, bar none.
I agree. And although Fusions are QUITE up to Camry level, they are CLOSE. it’s the stupid mistakes that keep it down such as the trouble prone SYNC radio system. Or the door latches that had to be recalled. But by and large, those cars are causing us (the mechanics) to nearly starve. (Good for the customer though, as it should be).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 11, 2017, 04:47:28 PM
Maybe you should stop wrenching Fords and start selling them. With your wealth of knowledge concerning Fords you could convince any customer of their value...(Just joking...once a wrench, always a wrench,, right. I've got a friend that lives nearby and he knows his Fords. Has a shop in the back yard. He will not wrench on anything that doesn't have F O R D on it. Charlie has built some beautiful Mustangs. He built a Willis, cab-over pickup with a 302, AC PS, PW and has a 55 PU he just up graded with a 4 something ci Ford engine, and put independent rear suspension in it and has all the bells and whiles. If I've got a Ford question, Charlie has the right answer.
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 13, 2017, 12:48:19 AM
Maybe you should stop wrenching Fords and start selling them. With your wealth of knowledge concerning Fords you could convince any customer of their value...(Just joking...once a wrench, always a wrench,, right. I've got a friend that lives nearby and he knows his Fords. Has a shop in the back yard. He will not wrench on anything that doesn't have F O R D on it. Charlie has built some beautiful Mustangs. He built a Willis, cab-over pickup with a 302, AC PS, PW and has a 55 PU he just up graded with a 4 something ci Ford engine, and put independent rear suspension in it and has all the bells and whiles. If I've got a Ford question, Charlie has the right answer.

Salesman? Ugggggggggh! My parents taught me morals. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] I Tell the used car salesmen to make sure they find out my opinion of a particular car BEFORE they bring a customer to me to get my assurance that the car checks out. Otherwise, I may reveal something they regret. Lol
As for turning wrenches, They say that I was almost born with a wrench in my hand. My mother says that when I was a toddler, she used to have to warn visitors to wait until I was accounted for before they moved their cars because I sometimes would be under them just looking underneath.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 13, 2017, 03:32:18 PM
That's funny about checking their cars before they go. I also grew up with mechanics. I remember my grand father telling about pulling the motor from an A model and carrying it in the house to overhaul it. Said he set the valves with obc cigarette paper. Now that is close tolerance.  He also said, "you don't drive a T or A model, you herd them down the road." He worked in the assembly plant in Memphis and Loraine for 37 years. My father-in-law worked at the Memphis plant all his life also. They both told me, that in the early days, if you could afford a car, and you drove it to work, it better be a Ford or you went on layoff. Yelp, I'm a Ford man through and through. How could I be anything else???
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 14, 2017, 06:21:03 AM
That's funny about checking their cars before they go. I also grew up with mechanics. I remember my grand father telling about pulling the motor from an A model and carrying it in the house to overhaul it. Said he set the valves with obc cigarette paper. Now that is close tolerance.  He also said, "you don't drive a T or A model, you herd them down the road." He worked in the assembly plant in Memphis and Loraine for 37 years. My father-in-law worked at the Memphis plant all his life also. They both told me, that in the early days, if you could afford a car, and you drove it to work, it better be a Ford or you went on layoff. Yelp, I'm a Ford man through and through. How could I be anything else???
I would have loved to have met your grandfather. My dad used to tell me about working on model A’s. His father was a mechanic as well. My grandfather said that the old Chevy trucks were weak and would break an axle in a heartbeat.

Interesting trivia. The Engine in the Ford 8N tractor is basically a slightly modified Model A engine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 16, 2017, 02:08:09 AM
You are so right, except the tractor motor has a different block, as the engine on the n series Ford tractors are stress members. But the internals are pretty much the same. The hp amounted to about 24. I love to hear those old engines run. They have a very distinctive sound. What I meant about the cars from the 40's-thru the 70's is,although they required much more maintenance, I could work on them and keep them going. These modern cars and truck have so much electronics and computer mess on them, they have left me far behind. I know you've had to keep up with it. so it's no big deal to you. I'm like the old mechanic who was talking to his heart doctor.. He said, Doc, I know you have to be pretty smart to do heart surgery. The doctors agreed. but I'm pretty daggum smart myself. Why I can completely disassemble a V8 car motor and overhaul it and reassemble it and she'll crank right up and purr like a kitten. The doctor replied, I guess you are pretty smart, but have you tried doing it while it's running.? hee hee. You probably heard this before, but if not, it should give you a chuckle..
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Mr. Paul on October 16, 2017, 02:41:50 AM
You are so right, except the tractor motor has a different block, as the engine on the n series Ford tractors are stress members. But the internals are pretty much the same. The hp amounted to about 24. I love to hear those old engines run. They have a very distinctive sound. What I meant about the cars from the 40's-thru the 70's is,although they required much more maintenance, I could work on them and keep them going. These modern cars and truck have so much electronics and computer mess on them, they have left me far behind. I know you've had to keep up with it. so it's no big deal to you. I'm like the old mechanic who was talking to his heart doctor.. He said, Doc, I know you have to be pretty smart to do heart surgery. The doctors agreed. but I'm pretty daggum smart myself. Why I can completely disassemble a V8 car motor and overhaul it and reassemble it and she'll crank right up and purr like a kitten. The doctor replied, I guess you are pretty smart, but have you tried doing it while it's running.? hee hee. You probably heard this before, but if not, it should give you a chuckle..




 :D :D :D
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 17, 2017, 07:20:33 AM
You are so right, except the tractor motor has a different block, as the engine on the n series Ford tractors are stress members. But the internals are pretty much the same. The hp amounted to about 24. I love to hear those old engines run. They have a very distinctive sound. What I meant about the cars from the 40's-thru the 70's is,although they required much more maintenance, I could work on them and keep them going. These modern cars and truck have so much electronics and computer mess on them, they have left me far behind. I know you've had to keep up with it. so it's no big deal to you. I'm like the old mechanic who was talking to his heart doctor.. He said, Doc, I know you have to be pretty smart to do heart surgery. The doctors agreed. but I'm pretty daggum smart myself. Why I can completely disassemble a V8 car motor and overhaul it and reassemble it and she'll crank right up and purr like a kitten. The doctor replied, I guess you are pretty smart, but have you tried doing it while it's running.? hee hee. You probably heard this before, but if not, it should give you a chuckle..
I’ve heard it before. But I still laugh when I hear it.

By the way, I say that we mechanics may be a little smarter than doctors. Every human has all of his parts in the same place. And the design hasn’t ever changed.
All brains are in the head, all hearts are in the chest and have the same design and location (in the chest, 4 chambers, same number of valves, etc. )
With cars the design changes regularly. Parts location varies from vehicle to vehicle. The “heart” may be two valve, four valve, V or inline configuration, front or rear of car, turned crossways or straight...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: CROSSBOLT on October 17, 2017, 01:33:07 PM
Yeah, but! Yeah, but the mech has to actually FIX the problem he is presented to keep his customers, whereas the General Practitioner, radiologist, oncologist and cancer surgeons keep handing the same B$ lines with no better outcome. Ordinary people are so snowed by "educated" shysters. This rant does NOT include trauma surgeons and EMT's, ER nurses and techs, etc.

Karl
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: ole two wheels on October 17, 2017, 03:47:15 PM
Yes, all that crossbolt said and something else. Mechanics mistakes just results in higher bills for the customers and their cars are  relegated to the used car lots and then on to the scrap yards, but doctor's mistakes translates into much higher bills and then their mistake are buried ...
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Forbes1964 on October 18, 2017, 05:50:26 AM
Yeah, but! Yeah, but the mech has to actually FIX the problem he is presented to keep his customers, whereas the General Practitioner, radiologist, oncologist and cancer surgeons keep handing the same B$ lines with no better outcome. Ordinary people are so snowed by "educated" shysters. This rant does NOT include trauma surgeons and EMT's, ER nurses and techs, etc.

Karl
Yes. When we attempt a fix, and it doesn’t work, we get to do it over for free. Or at the very least, we are expected to give a steep discount on the additional work. And the customer SURELY is not going to pay diag this time around Try asking a doctor to give a discount on the open heart surgery since the stint didn’t work. Try asking him to do this diag for free since the last diagnosis was not the answer to the current problem.

Good luck with that. Lol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The real cost of new car fuel economy
Post by: Stig / Major Tom on October 18, 2017, 10:37:34 AM
Internet Doctoring vs Internet Auto Repairs

Per the internet that pimple could be the Rare & Deadly Peruvian Spider Bite Cyst .....or worse. And it probably is.

Scion xB tire pressure light just pop on? :
Add air, and look here for the under-dash re-set button. !

Love it for videos of scooter servicing, too.
Recall being emboldened to do my LIKE's valves, yrs ago, after viewing the video, " Canadian Butter Knife " shot by our northern member and his wife.**

Stig
**exhalent99