I wonder how many us have nearly been (or actually been) a part of a similar story! 
My wife’s first car was a similar story that became part of my story. '72 Datsun 510 coupe for $200 with rust galore! That car was one fun tin-box.
@Mustangman. Triedaq stepped away from the computer, so I will comment on what kind of car he should drive. Triedaq should be driving a Volkswagen diesel from the early 1980s. This car fits his personality–makes a big stink, a lot of noise and doesn’t move very fast.
Mrs. Triedaq
5 Likes
Is this the effect of more “luxury cars” with lower numbers that pull down their average?
Because
“For the first time, Porsche and the other German brands were all better than the industry average. BMW was seventh, Audi eighth, Volkswagen 12th and Mercedes-Benz 13th.”
If the German brands were above average, some other brands are probably pulling the luxury brand average down.
Whatever the case, drive a Porsche – there is no substitute 
Man, Bing, you do hate the hydro stats. But some are durable, I promise. I don’t know if you can even find a commercial mower without a hydro stat trans.
I know what a clutch is, but I like to mow fast and not slow down and fumble with the clutch/brake system on the non hydro mowers I’ve had. With the hydros, if you want to speed up, no braking/shifting required. Just go.
Not trying to sway you, but you should try a zero turn mower with a hydro stat trans (I don’t think they make them any other way). I can’t go back! So much more efficient.
I can’t use a zero turn because I just do too much pulling carts, implements, and grading with plow, and got hills. Just doesn’t work. I think the issue with the hydros is that most of them are the low quality K-46 that might last a year or so before needing an overhaul. The $5000 rigs will have the heavier duty K-66. You can upgrade the internals for a thousand or so but who needs that. The thing is the problems could be prevented by putting in a 50 cent drain plug so the fluid could be changed. Some are starting to come out with the a CVT now but the housings are all plastic. So I’m just gonna hang on for a while. I thought maybe I’d put a new engine in but compression is good and no oil use and runs great but I’ve got over 400 hours on it now.
@Triedaq I find it fascinating how similar you and I are in some ways, and how opposite in others. During the 1950’s, my dad would buy a new Chrysler New Yorker every 3 years. I loved all the gadgets and the smooth, quiet ride. I didn’t care at all about road feel or things like that. When I started buying my own cars, most of them were gadget laden New Yorkers or Olds 98’s, with a couple muscle cars thrown in. If someone had told me in 1975 that my last car would be a small Asian sedan with a tiny 4 cylinder engine, I would have thought they were crazy. The first car I ever bought was a 1950 Chrysler New Yorker with an in line 8 cylinder engine, fluid drive, and the 4 speed semi automatic transmission, for $75.00 in 1968.
I guess they make all kinds of hydrostat transmissions, cheap to heavy duty. They can make durable ones, though. My $3k mower’s been fine for 13 or so years. And I believe skid steers, forklifts, and other equipment use that style trans. Of course those will be far more heavy duty than a lawnmower. My deck, bearings, etc, have worn out twice, but the transmission(s) are fine so far. I have heard of issues with the trans in mowers like mine, though. I’ve heard they can get water in them if stored outside or washed frequently, and ruin the trans. I dunno. I’d give up an auto trans in a car. But I like the hydrostat trans in a mower. Assuming it lasts. And I agree, the plastic housings on some of the newer light duty motors seem pretty chintzy.
I think the title of the article is VERY misleading
Lexus, Audi and BMW are in the top 10 of that list, according to the article
Last time I looked, those were all luxury cars
2 Likes
@old_mopar_guy. As I’ve become older, the more I seem to appreciate luxuries on my vehicles that I would never have considered 20 years ago. My last two minivans have been equipped with power sliding doors. I transport older musicians and their instruments (well, actually I am older than they are). The power doors are a real convenience in helping them in and out of the van. Although I can usually detect a low tire by the way a vehicle drives, a low tire sensor is a safety factor I appreciate.
However, an MG Midget is much more fun to drive than a Toyota Sienna minivan. I have always bought vehicles for the vehicle’s utility. There isn’t much utility value for me in an MG Midget. I don’t want to spend the money on toys, at least as far as vehicles are concerned.
I did buy a 1948 Dodge to restore some years back. It was fun to drive something different. I had it running well, but it needed bodywork. When I realized that I would have to hire a professional to make it look right, I bailed out. I was driving down the street in the Dodge and a person pulled up beside me at a stoplight and offered me more than I had paid for the Dodge. I sold him the car on the spot.
I did appreciate the engineering that went into the Dodge. The fluid coupling made the car almost impossible to stall. The electrically operated automatic choke worked flawlessly. The Dodge had electric wipers. The 1968 AMC Javelin I once owned was 20 years newer but still used vacuum wipers. The seat comfort was great.
I helped my next door neighbor restore a '48 Dodge a few years ago. Well engineered and well built but dowdy and old fashioned looking. It wasn’t until 1955 and the flashy styling of Virgil Exner that Chrysler’s cars became attractive.
1 Like
It’s interesting to me that the restyled 1949 Dodge was smaller in length and width and yet had more interior space. Dodge was restyled in 1953, made more compact, and gained even more interior space. That is what I think was good engineering
That article about luxury cars being less reliable was in our paper this morning, If I remember it right , it listed the top 10 cars in order of reliability. Lexus#1, Porsche and Toyota tied for 2ndm Chevy 4the. I don’t remember the order of the other 6 but they included BMW, Mini , Buick Audi, Hyundai and Kia.
I find it interesting that to me , low priced cars don’t exactly dominate that list. No other Japanese cars but Toyota/Lexus. the Korean twins beat all other Japanese brands. No Fords or Chrysler cars on the list. The Chrysler cars not making the list is not a big surprise, Being sold a bunch of times has been a disaster for them and I don’t think Fiat can improve the quality of anything. The only bright spot at Chrysler is the Ram and I think changing the name of the trucks was the height of stupidity.
The 49 was the result again of the hidebound K.T. Keller. The 53’s we’re partly styled by Exner and Maury Baldwin.
Beauty seems to be in the eye of the beholder
Recently Oldtimer Markt . . . a magazine about auto classics which some of those who did/do live in Europe will be familiar with . . . had an article about mopars. And the magazine’s opinion was that the Exner cars were hideous. They couldn’t for the life of them figure out how they ever got the okay to go into production
Note that I’m on the fence about the Exner cars. In my opinion, some were truly beautiful, while others were indeed hideous
Chrysler lost sales because of the styling of its 1953 and 1954 models. What also didn’t help was that there was no fully automatic transmission until 1954 except for a few late in the model year 1953 Chrysler New Yorkers.
Had a fully automatic transmission been available in 1953 for the Dodge, sales might have been better. Pontiac was still lumbering along with a flat head straight eight and Mercury still used a flathead V-8. Dodge, with its modern OHV V-8 should have done better against its competitors. I do think that in 1953 the Pontiac had the best styling of the three.
When I think about the 1950s, coming out with a new design to make previous years’ models look ancient was the way things worked. I didn’t like the looks of the 1957-59 Exner designed Chrysler products. I also didn’t care for the three-tone color schemes of the 1955-56 Dodgers and I was a teenager at the time.
I will give the 1953-54 Plymouth credit for one thing–they made great taxicabs. This was before Checker redesigned its line in 1956. The 1953-54 Plymouth was compact enough to be manueverable in city traffic and yet had more room than Ford or Chevy on the inside.
I thought Chrysler’s 1957 line across all five brands, were the best ever.
1 Like