View Full Version : Ford Should Simplify The Mustang...
Ford's Mustang is in it's 52nd year, or something like that. The original was put on the market in mid-1964. It cost, oh $2500, and weighed under 3000lbs. Any fool---even someone like Elmer Fudd--could perform repairs. That's how simple they were. The car was a big success & around 500,000 were sold the first year and a half. Okay, fast forward to today--125,000 Mussdangs are sold, in a good year. The Mussdang Gt350 is the flagship model. It has hyper-flamboyant retro styling that looks like a bloated 1969 model. Form has given way to function, in that they are hard to see out of. I would bet that, like those enormous suvs, they have a tv camera on the dash, to see whats behind you. Just betcha. The new Mustang, for all practical purposes a two- seater car, weighs as much as a 1960's Ford Galaxie sedan, which was a plus-size car then! Ford marketeers and the automotive consumption magazines are raving about the "flat plane" crankshaft design in the Gt350. Like it's an advance. Well, they are supposedly copying those Italians, who make the grossly overpriced sports cars. Sorry, but "Italian Technology", is an Oxymoron. Good one. Ha. Actually a "flat plane" crank is very much an obsolete design. Engines equipped with such run rougher at cruising speed and at idle. The benefit is a slight increase in power at very high RPM. Plus, they are cheaper to manufacture. That said, high rpm is an engine killer. That Mussdang modular engine is already extraordinarily complex. The average handy person who took auto mechanics in high school and is used to performing maintenance and light repairs would be lost, so complex is it. You lift the hood, and there's all this plumbing and gizmos, which raises the question: Where's the motor? I'll bet even experienced techs at dealerships would run and hide from that one, if it needed a major teardown. Not only that, but get this: the engine is supposed to output over 550 horsepower, but the exact rating and the curb weight of the car is as closely-guarded a secret by Ford as you kids'es weight. They do not disclose 'zact specs. I'm sitting here, wondering: who the hell needs 550 horsepower for the street? In addition to my 2004 Kangaroo Pontiac & the pickup, I have a 1997 Ford Aspire that has a 70 hp 1.3 liter engine, kind of an earthy green color, and I can't drive a few blocks without seeing yet another cop, on the lookout for violators of our great society's many, many rules. I got stopped, just the other day, so Barney could check me for outstanding warrants. Did I grab his gun? No. Thankk Mee. The Gt350 Mussdang is as conspicuous as a pink elephant, so good luck steering clear of LEO's. One other factoid: the original 'Stang had an optional v8 with around 200 horsepower, okay? Pretty good for a light car, and good enough to get you a ticket. Oh, and these new Mussdangs have a price tag, I think it is upwards of $50,000, but I'll check and correct if need be. Anyway, Ford must've decided that "If a little is good, and more is better, then waaay too much is just right!" It is hardly a simple machine.:0!
Yep, it's hard to find a simple car anymore. I saw my first car in someone's driveway the other day--a '63 Plymouth Fury. What I wouldn't give to have that baby again.
My current car is pretty simple however. No frills, not even electric windows. I've never had a problem with it (2006 Ford Focus) When my progeny ride with me anywhere they make me feel like a pariah. "When are you going to get a nice car, Mom?"
Yep, it's hard to find a simple car anymore.
I put myself through college partially by purchasing beat-up '60s Mustangs and restoring them - as Packy points out, any idiot could work on them. I don't think any idiot can work on many modern cars these days without special training and equipment, those days are long gone.
The new Mustangs are laden-down with safety gear (air bags, reinforced body structure, etc) - I've had to cut a few apart that ended up in collisions, I suspect due to excessive power in the hands of uneducated drivers on slippery roads. They did survive the crashes quite well, a '60s-vintage Mustang would have killed the occupants, as would most '60s cars.
I bought a new car a couple of years ago - a stripped-down, no-options Mini Cooper with the base engine, which cost about $18k brand-new. It is usually much more fun and sporting to drive around than either my fancy European supercar or my hyped-up sports car. And I can fit 20 bags of groceries in it, or 4 people. And it doesn't seem to use much fuel. I've had to cut one of these apart after a crash as well, it also protected the passengers very well.
I've made two trips so far, and still haven't found the parts (bulbs no one has heard of, a fiber stick--had to look that one up) necessary to replace a burned-out brake light, for Pete's sake. Oh well--my mechanic can use the business...
ToomuchStuff
1-15-15, 4:54pm
Things like manual windows do exist, but the dealers just tend to have more expensive vehicles, due to both demand and profit margin. (I still prefer those too)
Cars safety has sure improved and their was a video a few years ago to show it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ5PcWziXT0 (not full screen)
Even some of the things that started out more for "economy" such as unibody construction (lighter), had safety benefits (able to better design crumple zones) compared to frame based vehicles with their shear points (the bolts where things mount).
Jane, have you looked up the part on the manufactures website? Getting the official name can make it easier to find (online searches of autoparts stores, both stock (in stock or not and number), and name, (they have slang sometimes), can help).
...
Jane, have you looked up the part on the manufactures website? Getting the official name can make it easier to find (online searches of autoparts stores, both stock (in stock or not and number), and name, (they have slang sometimes), can help).
No, but I pulled the parts number right out of the manual, and the guy at the parts store looked it up somewhere, as well. Fortunately, my mechanic is nearby--and I have to talk to him, anyway.
Things like manual windows do exist, but the dealers just tend to have more expensive vehicles, due to both demand and profit margin. (I still prefer those too)
Cars safety has sure improved and their was a video a few years ago to show it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ5PcWziXT0 (not full screen)
Even some of the things that started out more for "economy" such as unibody construction (lighter), had safety benefits (able to better design crumple zones) compared to frame based vehicles with their shear points (the bolts where things mount).
Jane, have you looked up the part on the manufactures website? Getting the official name can make it easier to find (online searches of autoparts stores, both stock (in stock or not and number), and name, (they have slang sometimes), can help).Yes, this is the video of the staged crash between a 1959 Chevy sedan & a new Malibu. It did cause a small backlash among old car buffs, and there was considerable discussion of it on internet enthusiast forums. Even though the '59 Chevy that was crashed was not an extremely rare collector car, it is still questionable as to the merits of destroying an antique car and a new car in order to demonstrate what was a foregone conclusion, anyway. Bottom line, the insurance business is lucrative, and those business people think they can afford to waste money to make a statement. A consensus of the more knowledgeable auto enthusiasts(many commenters were not, and made judgments based on emotion) identified the following: The 1959 Chevy was a 50-year old car, and though it appears to have been pretty nice condition prior, it probably has some of the typical rust issues on the underside that cause the body mounting support braces to deteriorate, where they attach to the frame. This was evidenced during the slow-motion view of the impact, by a cloud of reddish dust emanating from beneath the cowl area. Full-size Chevy's from 1958-1964 were atypical of contemporary models of other brands in that they used an "X"-shaped frame, and they had the steering gearbox mounted on the frame horn almost directly behind the front bumper. The car used in the demonstration was inline 6-cylinder-powered, an engine which was long, and narrower and heavier than the V8 that most of those models were equipped with. Then, to stage the crash for maximum effect, they very cleverly had them collide off-center. The unit bodiedMalibu is structurally strongest right where it collided with the '59, at its' weakest point. The chevy got hit on the left front frame extension, a sheetmetal piece that then curls around, taking the steering box with it, and moving it backward, which then displaces the steering column rearward into the passenger compartment. The off-center, battering ram effect of the Malibu bypasses the engine in the '59, because the inline 6 is narrow, and does not act as a barrier in an offset frontal collision.. The old chevy's"x" frame, deforms readily because of the impact on the outer reach of one point of the "X"; that's the way leverage works. Hold your arms outstretched over your head, and see if you can resist another person attempting to pull it down, with all their weight. The unfortunate "X"design, as I said, was used only in 58-64 full-size Chevrolets, after which they began using a "perimeter" type frame. Prior to that, Chevies used a "ladder"-type of frame, and both pre- and post- X frame designs placed the steering box on the frame behind the very sturdy engine crossmember, in front of the cowl. You didn't have that tendency for the steering column to harpoon, displacing into the passenger compartment. And another issue: as TooMuchstuff touched upon, the shear points, that being where the body supports contact the frame, may have been strength-compromised by 50 years of corrosion. Not really an issue in normal driving, but in the event of a very hard crash, they may shear or the bolts pull out, and without support, the body separates from the frame enough to let it be crushed as severely as it was. As I said: The producers of the video started with a desired, pre-determined outcome, and in the process used a vehicle that would probably be one of the most vulnerable to sustain the extensive damage that it did. For all we know, other measures may have been taken on both cars, to help achieve the desired effect. My guess is, that old accident reports & photos kept on file and in the recollection of former insurance adjusters(and demolition derby and stock-car drivers) also may've influenced the choice of obsolete car to be used. Note that they did not use a '59 Lincoln Continental or Chrysler Imperial, THE demo derby cars of choice. That said, I would suggest that you kids be VERY, VERY careful when out driving your '59 Chevy, on your daily commute or vacation trip! Don't text n' drive, keep your eye on the road, watch your speed, that kind of thing. Don't run, carrying scissors, either. Chevy made millions of X-frame cars, most of them ended up in the junkyard, not on account of perceived safety issues, but because they simply weren't new, anymore. They didn't "drive the wheels off of them" like you kids do with your Volvas, Subbaroos, Toyodas; cars that seem to "run forever". Ha. Just "trying to be funny", there. Probably, less than !0% of 58-64 Chevies are still extant, just sitting most of the time. They are retired. And yes, some of them were wrecked. But, it stands to reason that it still was infrequent for them to be in a crash that severe. So, don't just let popular media make you a worrysome individual. See? Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
So, don't just let popular media make you a worrysome individual. See? Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
I stand by my statement that modern cars are vastly safer. This is based on not on popular media, but on my professional experience cutting up large numbers of vehicles that have experienced accidents, extricating people from the wrecks, and studying in detail the crash performance of modern and not-so-modern vehicles. People can walk away from accidents now that would have killed them 20+ years ago.
Everybody involved in this one went home:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-eYAqeEyXYKU/Ux0OpWeC3kI/AAAAAAAAJ6w/6Yx2Fm_DYPs/s720/resc1.jpg
Oh, I won't disagree with you that automotive engineers have applied an extensive amount of resources(i.e. Plastic) to attempt to decrease the likelihood of serious injury or death, as a result of a collision. A new car is like a padded cell. Much attention has been paid to highway design, to accommodate more traffic, and reduce hazards. Sure have. We also have stepped-up traffic enforcement--a cop on every block, with a 140 mph Dodge Charger and radios, to chase you down for speeding 50 mph in a 45. The remaining factor is driver error or carelessness, which probably accounts for most accidents, anyway. That, is what is still insuring that you have plenty of emergency calls. That wreck, in the photo above, looks like something only a spirited teen driver could accomplish, and survive. My concern is that when people sit and watch the boob-toob(Tee-Vee), and see crash-tested cars demonstrated, and hear all about airbags, etc., how "safe" new cars are, that they will simply take it for granted, and take more risks, be less focused on driving, and exercise less restraint, when they drive. Traffic in this town, from 3 to 6 PM, is murder. They will also recite the consumerist mantra: "Old Car Bad, New Car Good", assuming that is all there is to it. It's also like a matter of economics: the price of gas goes down, many people figure hey--I can afford to drive even more. So, there's really no saving. There's no incentive to conserve. It's also like this: If someone has a outstanding warrant out(for an unpaid fine or court appearance), or are carrying contraband, I believe it will motivate a good many people to drive more cautiously, so they don't get pulled over for a traffic violation, and get hauled to jail and the vehicle impounded. IOW, They are mindful of the risk of harm. "Safe" vehicles may actually not diminish it(harm) as much as we are led to believe, that's all. See? Hope that helps you some.
That wreck, in the photo above, looks like something only a teen driver could accomplish, and survive.
Mid-30s mom, infant in car seat in the minivan. Dark and stormy night, twisty road. Deer jumped onto windshield from Cliffside above the minivan, which then went off the road. And landed on the red car below it, a switchback below, piloted by a 40-something male, who was surprised as heck when minivan+deer landed on his car. All were sober. The photo is a restoration of the accident scene so we could teach folks how to stabilize the teeter-tottery mess before attempting to remove patients.
http://www.torquenews.com/sites/default/files/image-1083/%5Btitle-raw%5D/traffic%20deaths%20per%20100,000%20miles.gif
I realized how much modern safety features on cars help the day I watched an episode of cops. On this particular episode they were chasing a guy in a stolen car who managed to drive head on into a building at a high rate of speed. The man, who wasn't westing a seatbelt and would have been seriously injured in an older car, hopped out and tried to run away, thanks to the airbag that prevented him from smashing into the windshield.
Airbags save lives, but they make modern cars very tricky to get people out of - you need to make sure they are de-energized before you start cutting apart the car, or you may trigger one and injure the patient or one of the responders. Some of the newer cars have about a dozen airbags, as well as explosive seatbelt pretensioners and other tricky bits. You need to also know *where* to cut to avoid setting some of these items off even if you've removed power to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahmrr5T46Cc
bae, I'm curious, have you had to deal with getting anyone out of a hybrid? I remember when they first came onto the roads reading concerns about the safety of rescue people when dealing with a car that has such a large amount of electricity stored in it.
bae, I'm curious, have you had to deal with getting anyone out of a hybrid? I remember when they first came onto the roads reading concerns about the safety of rescue people when dealing with a car that has such a large amount of electricity stored in it.
Yes. We have special concerns about working around hybrids. You don't want to do Certain Things on them - puncturing the hood with a tool to stick in an extinguisher nozzle (which can punch into the battery pack on some of them), or cutting The Wrong Giant Cables, or you can zap yourself. We get special advisories with each new model that comes out. It is a bit tricky because generally firefighters cut every cable they see.
Wow, that rescue guy got nuked by that airbag! I thought they PREVENTED injury! Well, I was going to say that since we've got these cars that are so incredibly safe that you can't get hurt no matter how careless you are, I suppose the next step would be an onboard self-extricating feature for new cars, that also deploy when(not if, but when) they crash. Then, after the motorists walk away from the car they just totaled, first responders could meet them on the roadside, and simply give them a ride to their favorite new car dealership for an upgrade. The paperwork for the insurance payout and the loan contract will be transmitted immediately, and sitting on the sales managers' desk by the time they arrive. Everyone will be home for Pizza and Tee-Vee Football(featuring crash-dummy ads), with a minimum of delay. Thankk Mee.
lessisbest
1-17-15, 5:55am
I purchased a used '67 Mustang in 1970 when I was 17, shortly after high school graduation. In 1971 my new hubby and I had to overhaul it, which meant removing each piston, replacing the rings and pounding them back into the engine and putting the whole thing back together. Luckily we had an elderly friend, who had been a mechanic, helped us through the whole mess - along with a thick Chilton's car manual. When we traded that car in, the sales rep. purchased our Mustang for his son. The next car was a new Mustang II in 1974 because we didn't want to play shade tree mechanic every again. It's been many cars since, but I'd rather not have a "simple" car again. They required much more ongoing maintenance than the cars do today.
About those air bags.... You should drive with your seat adjusted so you are an arms length away from your steering wheel in order to prevent injury should it deploy. I explained the danger of this to a friend of ours who insisted on hunkering over his steering wheel. He was so close to the wheel it rubbed on his stomach. The day his airbag deployed, he found out what I was talking about and now sits as far from the steering wheel as possible. Many petite women, who peer through the steering wheel because they are too short for the vehicle, instead of OVER it, are in an unsafe position should the airbag deploy. Physics, pure and simple.
Ford's Mustang is in it's 52nd year, or something like that. The original was put on the market in mid-1964. It cost, oh $2500, and weighed under 3000lbs.
My dad was the first one in North Missouri to get possession a 64 1/2 mustang. He worked for a dealership. Only one came on the truck. The dealership owner offered him an extra $50 if he could sell it to one of the customers on the wait list. No deal even though $50 was their food budget for a month. It was light yellow. A couple years later he sold it because he thought he was going to 'nam. Mom turned up pregnant with me and they voided his draft......and he couldn't get the buyer to sell him back his car.
My dad was the first one in North Missouri to get possession a 64 1/2 mustang. He worked for a dealership. Only one came on the truck. The dealership owner offered him an extra $50 if he could sell it to one of the customers on the wait list. No deal even though $50 was their food budget for a month. It was light yellow. A couple years later he sold it because he thought he was going to 'nam. Mom turned up pregnant with me and they voided his draft......and he couldn't get the buyer to sell him back his car.It would have made a great first car for when you turned Sixteen.
We have a red 67 Mustang sitting in our garage. DH's baby - it's a real beauty!
A '67 Mustang. Nice! I was looking around here for a photo of a crashed 1971 Chevy Monte Carlo that I took at a wreckin' yard about 20 years ago. I took the rear axle assembly out of it. It had been in a hard, direct head-on with I-don't-know-what, but the drivers door was bowed out, and the glass broken even though it had not been directly impacted. I asked the wreckin' yard guy if the driver survived, and he said yes, that is who he bought the wreck from. A year or two later, I bought a 283 Chevy engine that was in a 1966 Impala that had been hit on the drivers side going through an intersection at speed, by a pickup. The Impact was so severe that it broke the axle and rear end housing; just snapped it off(which I in fact also bought to use for parts), the transmission fell out on the pavement, and the car caught on fire. The only body part that was still good was the back bumper. I asked the wreckin' yard guy if the driver survived, and according to him, he definitely did. This was a very small salvage company, so the owner was involved in every transaction. Just wish I had a photo of it to post here, too. Neither of the severely crashed vehicles I just described had those "gas bags" that automatically explode in your face if your car decelerates too rapidly. From now on, I will be taking my camera along, to photograph late-model "death cars", in which the airbags did deploy, but ended in an unfavorable outcome, anyway. I have seen a number of those, too. Anecdotal evidence is your friend, right? Well, isn't it? Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
It would have made a great first car for when you turned Sixteen.
No no no no!
My Dad had always wanted a '60s Mustang. So when my sister was 16 and began driving, he got one, restored it nicely, and let her have it as her first car. She wrecked it within a month.
I got my first car when I was 20, and had to pay for it myself, and it was an unrestored mid-60s Datsun held together with rust. Which I drove for years, maintaining it with duct tape and bailing wire. I'm not bitter...
mschrisgo2
1-18-15, 5:44pm
Slightly off topic...but... when my daughter was about to be 16, she asked me how much the insurance would be for her to drive my car. Totally wanting to avoid an emotional scene as we were both on our way to school, I told her I didn't know, but when she got home she could call the agent and find out, his number was in my book (clearly pre-cell phone era). The first thing she said when I walked in the door that afternoon was "the insurance guy said I should do both of us a favor and not drive until I'm 18 because almost all 16-year-olds crash a car in the first year, and very few 18-year-olds do." Whew! dodged that bullet...
Followed by- "I need 2 tubes, both my bike tires are flat." YAY!!!
Slightly off topic...but... when my daughter was about to be 16, she asked me how much the insurance would be for her to drive my car. Totally wanting to avoid an emotional scene as we were both on our way to school, I told her I didn't know, but when she got home she could call the agent and find out, his number was in my book (clearly pre-cell phone era). The first thing she said when I walked in the door that afternoon was "the insurance guy said I should do both of us a favor and not drive until I'm 18 because almost all 16-year-olds crash a car in the first year, and very few 18-year-olds do." Whew! dodged that bullet...
Followed by- "I need 2 tubes, both my bike tires are flat." YAY!!!That IS a heartwarming story, it really is. The main purpose a car serves is for them to get away from adult supervision, and do adult things. Kids are growing up too fast. I've thought for a long time that raising the driving age or at least place a few more restrictions on teen drivers might help reduce the leading cause of death for teenagers. I see news reports of fatal crashes by teen drivers on a regular basis, here. These people will boo-hoo oh, poor me; my precious baby! But that's it. There's no outcry for stringent preventative measures, like there is for child abuse or bad bus drivers, sex offenders, etc. I believe that the solutions are on the table, it is just a lack of political will to follow through, for some crazy reason.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.