Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
American cars were well built into the early 70's. About 1975 or so they decided to start to use thinner engine castings and such. Then in the 80's they converted most of them to FWD and I think that's where most of the "junk" cars really evolved from. Many people who hate American cars owned something like a Ford Tempo or a Chevy Cavalier or a Dodge Neon and base it off of that. Those cars were built cheap for the cheap. The trucks and the full size cars and mid sized cars IMO retained good quality.
As pointed out the engines were "detuned" in the 70's with smog parts, asthma-like small runner heads, drinking straw sized exhaust pipes, tiny lawnmower cams, King sized combustion chambers with ultra low compression ratios and retarded ignitions to make the EPA happy. Sometimes it kept the engine from running right because Detroit had to figure out a way overnight to make their engines more Earth friendly. But fast forward a few years they figured out how to do that AND make good power at the same time.
As for Japanese models they had good engines (albeit underpowered) but their bodies were notorious for rust. The early Honda Civics were a perfect example. I believe though eventually they saw the quality once found in American cars and then refined it to what is today.
I will say this I've owned a mid 70's American car that was actually a pretty well built car.
I still have trouble understanding this whole "Cars were built better and more solid back in the old days." If this is true then why would a 50's Chevy or Ford need to be restored periodically? Rust and time destroys ALL cars old and new.
I bet a 2010 Civic or even a 2010 Mustang would stand a better test of time and manufacturers are producing better paints and overall materials that I think will stand the test of times.
On a side note, Ford is making some very nice reliable cars lately...but remember Ford may be American, but many models are designed and engineered by international companies.
I remmeber tha they got really bad i the mid 70's from waht they were.If you watched you saqw GM workers say that they started sending out defective vehicle for dealers to deal with about then. Fro m there they pretty much went downhil. My company bought fleet vehicles and even when they satrted the we are better;JD Powersw thing they continued. That is what really loowed the Japenese to taqkeover the car market. For eyars;eve now;trucks and SUs are a large part of their market. The lowerig of gas porices has help but that looks to be changing again as China and India economies recover amid huge growth.
I recall those years when I was a small kid and my Dad was the neighborhood "go-to" guy for car repairs. There was nothing but American built cars around in those days, and we did a lot of valve jobs/ring & valve jobs on cars of the 40's and 50's. It wasn't uncommon to see in-line 6's and 8's need a valve job at 40-50,000 miles, and V-8's, too. Dad did a lot of brake jobs (hyrdraulics were fragile and rusting out all the time ... and we still were cleaning off brake shoes and riveting new ones on the shoes and arc grinding them) and suspension components replacement. A lot of stuff was heavier built, like wiring harnesses, but electrical components (turn signal switches, headlight switches, heater blowers, high beam switches, etc) were failure items that saw frequent replacement. Of course, tune-ups ... points & cond, plugs, dist cap/rotors, ignition wires, fuel pumps, carb overhauls ... were all pretty commonplace events. I spent a lot of time cleaning out oil-bath air filters and such, and many hours cleaning out the sludge from valve covers and engine components. Radiators and t-stats were failure items, and were frequently cleaned out (rodded and boiled) at the radiator shops. Hoses and belts were routine service items, with short lives. Exhaust components were fairly routine replacement items. Considering that we did a lot of work on Cadillacs, Buicks, Chevy's, Packards, Dodge, Chrysler, Studebaker, Rambler, Fords, and a host of others ... I can't say that the cars of the 40's-50's were any great shakes for reliability or durability.
Similarly, the cars of the 60's weren't so great, either. In my first auto shop, my partner did a lot of domestic ring/valve jobs on all brands of cars. He also did a lot timing chain/gear replacements ... I recall a lot of plastic toothed timing gears that wore out/broke up, as well as the steel gears that wore out the chains. We did a lot of brake jobs, and honing out of cylinders (and replacement seals) was always required because the cylinders were sludged up. Shocks weren't very durable, nor were tie rod ends, idler arms, etc. Early alternators weren't so durable, either. Belts and hoses were still pretty common failure items. Switches weren't terribly durable. I recall that many an American V-8 needed a valve job around 50-60,000 miles, so there wasn't much improvement in the materials or design at that point. Radiators still needed rodding out fairly frequently ... and we saw a lot of A/C work with failed compressors and hoses, as well as expansion valve failures.
By the 1970's, with the advent of the smogged motors ... motor durability wasn't much better, and by then the HP was way down. But a lot of features were now common on all cars ... A/C, power steering, automatic transmissions, power options, etc. All stuff to go wrong and be work for us, especially smog system components added to the tune-up list ... PCV and EGR valves, smogged carb's, early FI systems, and early manufacturer Electronic ignitions and alternator controls.
At that point ... the late 1960's thorugh the the mid 1970's, perhaps some models into the mid 1980's ... IMO, the german cars were far superior to the USA cars, and our family's experience with Japanese cars was a lot better than they'd ever gotten out of domestic cars ... and that's from a family that drove Buicks and Packards for many years (and had a few Brit roadsters for fun cars). I was the first to buy German cars, with a MB 220SEb, followed by a host of 250's and 280's (108 chassis cars), and then a '72 220D that ran for over 400K miles before being totalled out in a icy road crash excursion (and the motor was sold for $2,000 out of it).
If there was a time when domestic cars were, in fact, at the top of the game ... I think it was during the late post-war II era, the 40's through the mid/late 1950's when other producing countries were still coming out of the doldrums from the war years.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc76
I still have trouble understanding this whole "Cars were built better and more solid back in the old days." If this is true then why would a 50's Chevy or Ford need to be restored periodically? Rust and time destroys ALL cars old and new.
Very true, rust will destroy all cars in time. Those old cars were built with thicker, heavier steel because no one cared about smog or gas mileage then. Even without today's rust treatments and undercoating they did last longer. When I sold my '72 El Camino in 2007 it was just starting to get a little rust under the doors. I have seen totally rusted out cars from the early 90s. The metal is a lot thinner to save cost and make them lighter to meet EPA mileage standards. I do think there should be better technology by now to make even thinner metals last longer, but then if people kept their cars a lot longer the manufacturers would not be selling as many new ones.
As a kid in the 1930's and early 40's helped my dad in his Legal shop behind our house.
Saw many time where he did a ring job on many cars with 30,000 miles on the speedo. That was a standard thing for him on many cars.. Putting new rings meant a tighter running engine. I would either push with a car or pull with a rope using another car to get it started. He would then drive back to the garage and do the needed adjustments.
I could almost have used your post and signed my name as there were so many similarities in my past on the old 1930 cars and a few of those up to 1941. As you know only a few were made in the early part of 1942.
Those days a mechanic rebuilt or repaired many parts as a parts house did not exist except for what the New Car Dealers kept on hand.
I still have trouble understanding this whole "Cars were built better and more solid back in the old days." If this is true then why would a 50's Chevy or Ford need to be restored periodically? Rust and time destroys ALL cars old and new.
I bet a 2010 Civic or even a 2010 Mustang would stand a better test of time and manufacturers are producing better paints and overall materials that I think will stand the test of times.
On a side note, Ford is making some very nice reliable cars lately...but remember Ford may be American, but many models are designed and engineered by international companies.
I think you're missing the relative comparison. When most people say "American cars were built better back in the day," the unspoken addendum is not "compared to American cars of today" but rather "compared to the foreign competition they faced back then." Most of what few foreign cars were available back in that era may have had better driving dynamics, but they'd also leak crap all over your driveway just to spite you and rust before your very eyes. Dollar for dollar, American cars had unbeatable build quality in the 50s and 60s. But then the Japs in particular caught up and then some, and the rest is history...
Many people say the 70s cars were garbage, but it really wasnt until the downsizing began in the mid-late 70s when they went downhill. The mid-size and full-size cars of the early 70s (and some mid 70s) were actually really good cars. The only early 70s exception I can think of would be like the Pinto and Vega... which were not that great, but cars like the Impala, Electra, LTD, etc were good cars.
The mid 70s and older were good cars... I have owned several pre-75 American cars and really never no issues.
Here is a story of my personal experience... One of my cars is a 1973 Pontiac Grand Ville, made in August of 1972. I have owned it for 10 years, driven it on a regular basis and the ONLY problem I ever had was the alternator started making a noise when I washed the dust off of the engine one day. I think the bearings went out after I got the alternator wet. I paid $15. to have new bearings installed and its been fine ever since. I also had to replace a rotted fuel line, which was $2. ALL electric options work, the power door locks, the power windows go up and down quickly, etc. The car does not even have any leaks and its almost 40 years old. I have never even had to replace a light bulb or put on new brake rotors, etc. I do have other cars I drive, so I have only put about 40,000 miles on the car in the 10 years I have owned it, but thats still alot of miles/years to not have any problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradyischamp
ford, chevy, gmc etc.
i think since like the 90s they would break down a lot compared to japanese cars. or did it begin earlier? i suppose the unions have something to do with this but i wonder if they were good cars during the early years and if they were, what happened?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
