Doc’s right about run-on (dieseling) and other operating problems brought about by leaning out the carbs. The problems were rampant in the early '70s. The problem occurred because the lean mix elevated cylinder temps to where some would self-ignite like a diesel even when the key was off. As long as the pistons could still pull air in, and as long as the carburetor float bowl had gas to get drawn in at the venturi and the combustion chambers remained hot, the darned things wanted to keep on running even without the sparkplugs firing.
Most manufacturers solved the problem in the mid '70s by adding Idle Stop Solenoids that totally closed the carb and choked the engine when the ignition was turned off. I’m surprised Doc’s '88 still had the problem.
@B.L.E.
“While LED lights can be dimmable, the effect is not the same as dimming an incandescent light. When you dim an incandescent lamp, the color of the light changes, going from brilliant white to a warm candle light effect.
When you dim a LED light, you get the effect of moonlight.”
You made me get up and go try the 10 bulb chandelier. I dimmed it to all different levels and see absolutely no undesirable lighting results. Looks great in that room. In fact, we believe it is brighter when turned up all the way than when the old equivalent incandescent bulbs were in it (The ones that burned out all the time.)
Also, the LEDs net an 87% reduction in electricity consumption! I’m a believer. CSA
I didn’t necessarily mean the effect was undesirable, just different. Incandescent lights go from white to yellow to orange as you reduce the voltage. The light gets “warmer”. With LED’s, the light just gets dimmer but the light color stays the same.
Yeah you made me get up and check the dimmer switch in my office. I’ve got the can lights. I didn’t see any difference at all from incandescent. Maybe it depends on which color LED you get. Mine are all the soft 2300 spectrum or something. Couldn’t see the moon tonight though to compare-it’s raining.
I only used a couple CFLs and had one burn. I know all the hotels and everyone uses them but my biggest issue outside of the appearance of the light is that they have mercury in them. They have to be properly disposed of just like smoke detectors. So skip the Walmart CFLs and just go to LEDs.
I couldn’t understand the Enormous proliferation of Ford Explorers and larger vehicles when they hit us in that flood the way they did. I would constantly ask…why are we doing this? I had a few pretty slick Hondas at that time… I would always wonder why we did what we did…and I chalked it up to the Auto Makers and Big Oil and whatever pillow talk they laid down over the years.
You drove a Ford Explorer for 12 years and don’t know why? Were you under hypnosis?
You guys are bringing up memories of the “Darkest Days in Automotive History” as far as Im concerned. Boy what garbage we had to deal with…I believe that many of the older guys still hold some sort of resentment or willingness toward change…due to the memory of those days. Converting Backwards was a common practice during those times… I recall many many horror stories of this generation of Autos… and I bet you guys do as well.
We live in good times now eh ? Today we have 400+ Hp V8 and V6’s that start first try…and IDLE as smooth as butter… an almost impossible feat many yrs ago… Good times indeedy
Sport utility vehicles were essentially an end run around automobile CAFE standards. Your vehicle was not subject to car CAFE standards if it was a “truck”. The whole SUV thing was an unintended consequence of raising fuel economy standards.
Before we had fuel economy standards, large families owned station wagons (remember station wagons?) and pickup trucks were truly utilitarian and driven mostly by farmers, electricians, and plumbers. Vinyl bench seats, rubber floor mats, six cylinder engines and three on the tree shifters. Most of them didn’t even have radios.
@mountainbike My Chevy was the very last one with those carbs. The next year TBI made its entry.
My father in law had a Mercury Grand Marquis with the infamous Ford “Feedback” carb, causing no end of driveability problems. He had an older one grafted on and it solved the problem.
The emission standards forced the development of reliable fuel injection systems which was also necessary to achieve fuel mileage standards.
As mentioned before without any government rules on safety, fuel efficiency and emissions (with 50,000 mile performance guarantee) automotive development would have been a lot slower and only skyrocketing gas prices would have driven some development in that area.
When I worked in Malaysia in 2002, one of the engineers had a 2001 Ford Escort (called a Laser) which still had a carburetor since that country did not have US or European style emission controls.
When Is a Motor Too Big?
Answer:
When you overhear a female car, parked in front of a mirror, ask a male car,
"Do these new tires make my motor look big?" CSA
I have to agree with BLE. In the old days we had full sized station wagons. In 61 we could load our duck boat in the back of the wagon. Sure it stuck out some but still fit. You could pull a boat trailer with it or a camper, or whatever. When cars were downsized, you had no choice but to buy a truck or an SUV if you had any recreational vehicles to pull at all. I believe it was an “unintended consequence” of federal manipulation of the market. I don’t know the figures but there are a lot of boats, snow mobiles, ATV’s etc. in the midwest. All of these require pulling a trailer. Sure in California you can mount a surf board on the top of a small car but in Minnesota you need a boat.
Doc, the bottom line is that I cannot agree with your contention that without government regulations automotive development would have been a lot slower.
Automobiles have been in mass production for over 100 years now. The EPA came into existence in 1970, at almost exactly the halfway mark. There was arguably more advancement in automotive technology between the infancy of automotive production and 1970 than there has been between 1970 and now. There’s a bigger difference between a Model T and a '70 Ford (any model) than there is between a '70 Ford and a 2016 Ford. I would argue that the feds have actually caused R&D resources to be diverted to regulatory compliance that would have been spent on technology advancement.
Carbs vs. fuel injection? Well, the benefits of fuel injection were well known long before the EPA came into being, but there was no good way to manage it until microchips evolved. My '89 had a carb, 19 years after the Clean Air Act was passed. The feds had zero to do with the development of microchips or electronic fuel injection.
I agree, HBB - not at all sure about there being more difference between a T and a '70 Ford. A T mechanic would pretty well understand and work on everything under the hood on a '70 Ford.
No, Honda, what you wrote is perfectly rational… and would make a great debate.
For regular street cars, suspension systems, braking systems, starting systems, cooling systems, lubrication systems, even basic body configurations (sedan/coupe/roadster/van etc.) advanced dramatically from the Model T to 1970, but not really much since. Unibodies and FWD actually began well before 1970 and became more common due to manufacturing cost reduction goals as the technology evolved to the point of cost effectivity.
The only real issue I can see as being possibly arguable as related to the EPA are fuel metering, carburation vs. fuel injection, and I’ve already stated my theory on those. Aerodynamics may have been advanced some due to the Clean Air Act, but that too was well known before 1970 and I’d be willing to argue that consumer demand for greater mileage during and after the oil embargo was a greater driver of that than the feds.
The overall debate, regardless of which side you come down on, is definitely interesting to me.
Yeah TSM… You mentioned a good one with those comparos… Interesting… so much has changed. Vehicle concept is surely the same…but the execution is so different now.
But guess what…a model T is what 100yrs old, older? People 100 yrs from now wont ever be able to hear or see a 16’ Camry (Insert Any modern car name here) because it wont stand that test of time.
The Model T was made With STEEL…and aside from the seats, was rugged as could be…in fact it was designed as such but vehicles grew even more robust after the T. Early cars looked spindly but were pretty heavy for what it was…IMHO.
I just sold a T front axle beam…and a rear end… they looked so delicate from 10ft away…but go pick either of them up and Ooof ! They were heavy as hell and made of real steel. They were built to last and last they did… Same goes for the Model A wire wheels I just sold…Heavy Heavy Heavy…
I dont know what would be left of a new new car 100 yrs from now, some wire loom and some plastic ooze maybe?
The T to 70 have a better chance at showing their faces 100yrs from now than any new car methinks…
The great thing about the simplicity of Model T’s is that they were highly repairable and restorable… and countless of them were turned into hot rods in my youth. I’m not sure any modern daily driver will ever be worth the extreme cost of restoration. And you can’t replace body parts or make a hot rod with the ease with which you could do so with a Model T. I agree, I seriously doubt of any of today’s daily drivers will be around 100 years from now. Of course, I’ll never find out if I’m right or not!
When I was a kid the neighbor in back of us and a couple houses down had a house moving business. That big ole truck he had parked (don’t remember if it was an old Mack or what) had a chain drive to the wheels. Must have been old but I think the T’s had a chain drive too for a while. Then came drive shafts and leaks.