Well of course it does because that was the way things were done at that time. Get with todays facts George.
And apparently you think those 6 grease points would cost 1660.00 to be sealed .
2 Likes
That was because your vehicle had an external filter. Most systems today are a back-flush system. Again - when they first came out I was extremely skeptical. When you replace a filter, you are removing the dirt thatās in the filter from the system. Just replace filter every x-miles as recommended by the manufacturer. Some filters like the one on my wifeās 96 Accord or my 98 Pathfinder was a royal pain to replace. I was expecting problems with the newer back-flush systems. Any dirt that enters the gas-tank stays there. Itās never removed unless you drop the tank and replace the pump/filter assembly. But I never had a problem - even after 300k miles. So, Iām convinced.
I think that George really wants to go back to the so-called Good Old Days. 
As this lube chart confirms, Fords of the '30s & '40s required lubrication of virtually everything, every 1k miles. And, even though he thinks that going backward with technology would save money for car owners, I think he is forgetting about the labor and the materials costs that are involved with lubing a car every 1k miles.
1 Like
Why stop there, just go back to the old horse and buggy, and how many miles did you have to grease up the hubs on a buggy??? Oh wait, they didnāt have the Hubodometer back then did they?? I guess you would just have to use a smartphone app with GPS odometer to properly keep up with itā¦ 
That is about as ridicules as this threadā¦ lol
3 Likes
@VDCdriver is spot on about early cars
I found a 1914 Buick owners manualā¦ lube points required each DAY, more each week, oil changes each month and a full teardown, clean and reassembly of the engine and transmission.
You would need a live-in mechanic to keep the car serviced.
Luxury car owners would have one. Families that can afford a Rolls Royce, Hispano Suiza or Duesenberg would have one and that person would be the chauffer as well.
1 Like
Iāll answer my own question.
Iād rather have the $10,000 in my bank account. It would more than make up for the inconvenience of having to grease the car every 1,000 miles. If I didnāt want to do that job, Iād hire it out, using the $10,000 to pay the fee. Iād still be money ahead.
Iāll grant this is a hypothetical, not likely to ever be an actual choice w/modern cars. But the trade-off b/t new car prices and frequency of maintenance is definitely worth a consideration. For example, what if the price reduction was $50,000? I claim thereās some new-car price reduction amount that most car owners would agree to in return for 1,000 miles greasing requirements. Iām curious what that number is.
Get serious , now you are getting ridiculous .
3 Likes
I doubt it would save $1, much less $10,000.
3 Likes
Just a quick check shows that greaseable U-joints, tie rods, ball joints cost more than permanently lubed ones, so it would cost more to make a car with them, plus be an inconvenience to the owner.
5 Likes
No dispute, but yours is an apples & oranges argument. A 1963 Dodge Dart would cost way more to manufacture now then in 1963. Even ignoring inflation. The fixtures used to make it are no longer available. And even if they were, thereās no way to take advantage of the economy of scale.
I donāt understand. @It_s-Me is referring to current prices for current items. Canāt get much more apple to apples, to me.
Do you think modern low-maintenance parts are more expensive? Why?
I remember replacing plenty of lubed-up zerk-equipped suspension components at the shop in the '70s. I bet modern sealed units out last them, even if theyāre well-maintained. Lose-lose situation, seems to me.
2 Likes
My reasoning is that todayās part prices are due to the effects of economy of scale. Those are parts made in mass quantities, so their prices cannot be fairly compared to parts that are no longer made in mass quantities, but used to be made in mass quantities in days of yore.
Who would want one ?
2 Likes
And if a Frog had wings, it wouldnāt bump itās A$$ every time it jumpedā¦ gezzā¦
woulda coulda shoulda, I think I have lost IQ points talking about all this foolish crapā¦
2 Likes
It still took extra machining to make those parts greaseable,
If they donāt have to drill the holes in U-joints for the grease to be pumped through, itās got to be less expensive.
Plus the zerk fitting.
Pretty sure they mass produced U-joints in the āGood Olā Daysā
1 Like
I spent some time in my youth drilling wheel castings for grease zerks. I can assure you it was an extra operation. And apple doesnāt know what a zerk is.
If the cost was adjusted for inflation and built with modern parts it would cost a lot less. And could not be sold in the US, Europe or Japan since it meets none of the requirements.
An additional moot pointā¦
1 Like
The question remains: would todayās car buyer buy a car that cost considerably less than the competitive brand , if it required more frequent maintenance? It would depend on the circumstances of course, but in general would feel that saving $10,000 on the price of a new car, everything else being equal, Iād buy the lesser-priced make if it required 6 grease fittings be lubed every 1,000 miles, or whatever maintenance it needed that was equivalent to the amount of billable shop time that took.
Would you pay the $10,000 extra to be free of that task?
Againā¦ No I would not.
2 Likes