Any car enthusiasts here?

Post Reply New Topic

A good ride is not just floating. It was actually Cadillac that developed the modern concept of how to tune the springs for pleasant motions, about 90 years ago. However, the chassis needs more sophistication than a flexible old car for maximum stability and ease of driving. Personally, I prefer a fairly firm ride, the better to feel the road and use marginal traction when necessary. I remember my dad going off the road on ice one day in an Oldsmobile, when a smaller car might have warned him it was no longer tracking sooner.

It is a little Mitsubishi Colt. It is an interesting car to drive because it feels different the way it handles so it takes a bit of getting used to, though once used to it, it holds the road well.
One wierd thing about it is that I once had a flat tyre and apart from the steering was vibrating a little so it felt like a wheel weight had come off (I was taking some hairy corners at 60mph and puzzling why oncoming drivers were flashing their lights at me). I crove another four or five miles to find a place safe to pull in just to check the car. Was when I found a front tyre was totally flat.
I was talking about this to the person who used to own my brothers little Mitsubishi and he said he drove about 20 miles trying to fathom out what felt different about his car before he found that he had a flat tyre, and three times it had happened to him with both back and front tyres when he owned the car. He found that the handling and the way the car rode over the bumps didn't seem to be that much different so he didn't catch on to having a flat tyre.
I felt something, but I couldn't work out what it was. I have had flat tyres in other cars and one does notice (Though a little Renault Megane coupe (The 2001 small bodied version) which the back of the car was so lightweight... I had hit a slate stone and holed two tyres. Only had one spare so I put it on the front. If I wasn't over 100 miles away from home I would have driven home as the rear of the car was so lightweight it didn't make a lot of difference. Just didn't want to risk any damage to the wheel so I drove a few miles to get to a safer place and called out a breakdown crew, who took me to their dealership and changed the tyre for me. The rear tyre with an inch hole in the side... Well. The car was in effect riding on three wheels so it was noticeable, but I reacon if it was legal to do so I could have made the distance without damaging the wheel. Just didn't want to be stopped. It had a 1600cc petrol engine and was front wheel drive in a small short car so the rear end was not doing a lot. The type of car that almost didn't need back wheels! ).

The way cars handle and ride. I once had one of the last of the Audi 80's which was a saloon and as it was made just before the newer Audi A4 came in, it used the A4's floorplan and had the stiffer sports suspension. Had a V6 2.6 petrol engine which was like the 2.8 but had a shorter stroke. The engine was easy to stall, but boy could it rev! How those 6 cylinders could spin so fast I don't know... Handling was absolutely amazing. If one knows Audis and wants the best handling, always buy the saloon. The coupes and the estates are ok but nothing in comparisson to the stiffness of the saloon. I would head to 90 degree corners on our Welsh roads and be going far too fast to slow down in time and just turn and the car would not even drift.
I as going all the way around roundabouts at 60mph and I took a mini roundabout at 30mph without cutting through the middleand she would just take it.
Mine was just front wheel drive, and yet it went soo well on ice and snow. I had a GF at the time where to visit her in the hills... There was ice on the road on occasions in June. But the winters there where she lived had more ice then tarmac. Yet that car would take twisty Welsh roads (Those roads were often closed and used to take the Welsh sections of a well known UK rally) and I could drive that Audi at 60mph on those roads with hardly any sliding.
But part of the reason why I eventually part exchanged it. Because it handled so immaculately, I got bored. Another curious thing was that where ever I drove it and how ever light or heavy footed I was it always gave me 35mpg. I would drive it ever so light footed for a whole tank and almost run the tank dry from full and I had 35mpg. The next tank of fuel it would be foot down all the way and still 35mpg. Never had a car like it.
The Audi 90 I had before it was a 2.3 straight 5 cylinder petrol (Saloon) and it handled like a brick and the engine was the complete opposite. It would not rev any higher then about 4000rpm, but it had so much torque at low revs. Though it was petrol, the torque at low revs would put diesels to shame. And it could go too. Front wheel drive, tyres wheelspinning as I accelerated... Wheelspinning in 1st, change to 2nd and wheelspinning again, change to 3rd ad still wheelspinning! I out accelerated a Merc. One if those 2 seater large engined sports cars. I could beat him to 70mph in the Audi but that first Audi seemed to rely on its weight to hold it on the road. Once overtook a car, and the pull on the front wheels dragged the back of the car with such force that the back was swaying back and fore with me trying to counter balance it. The handling was not its strong point. Complete opposite to the second Audi I mentioned above. The 5 cylinder engine sounded like it had a lot more cylinders then it had.
Actually I have had three 5 cylinder engines. I also had a Volvo 10v 2.5 850 estate, and then I had another 850 estate but with a 2.3 turbo engine (It was an early Volvo T5 with 225bhp). To be honest, both those cars felt the same to drive but the T5 then was much better in the higher rev range. In low to normal revs in normal driving it was less noticeable as withthe 2.5, Volvo had made it a 20valve engine but because there were complaints that the 20valve engine lacked the low down torque when towing large caravans, they brought out the 10valve which had thelow down torque, but was overall 30hp down on the 2.5. (140 bhp instead of 170). So I found the 140bhp version identical to the more powerful T5 version in the lower rev ranges. However, I did not rate those volvos that highly as they were costly to run and costly to maintain. The engines were fine. Was that they would go through a set of front tyres in just 2000 miles if heavy footed, and even if light footed the front tyres were only lasting just over 4000 miles which is hardly any distance. Their ability to get traction was soo poor, that there was little point in giving the car so much power. The previous rear wheel drive volvos had no issues.
I also found the 5 cylinder engines thirsty. 25mpg and 30 on a good day for the 2.5 and 20mpg and 25 on a good day for the T5.
Another issue with both cars. Here in Wales we have so many corners that we tend to wear out suspensionnparts quicker. Every year before the annual MOT test on both those cars Iwould have big repair bills as the rear suspension joints had to be changed. £250 in parts costs for the 2.5 and £500 in parts costs for the T5, and the parts were identical visually. Were they the same part but they charged double for the T5? Every year I had to have them done. Yet, the older rear wheel drive Volvos lie the 9 series and the 7 series which were similar sized cars but were rear wheel drive had no such issues, and I found the 2.3 4 cylinder 16 valve double overhead cam engine in the 740 (Non turbo) would have left the T5 in acceleration hands down because it could get grip and was a real sprightly engine. Also had over 40mpg towing a 17 ft caravan with it. (I worked it out as 43mpg over a 450 mile trip).
I have had many cars, and nearly half of them were Volvos! I liked Volvos but the company seemed to loose its way from the 1990's onwards as prior to this their engines and cars were ace with the exceptions of the 850's and the 4 series cars.
My earliest Volvo was a 1965 Amazon. An 1800cc 4 cylinder which could go! Could cange gears so quick in the thing and it handled well too when drifting etc.
The 360's I had (Have had two GLT's and a GL) were my favourites. They just would go where you put them at almost any angle you required. They also had go as well, as I was out acdelerating a 2.8 BMW 5 series where though I didn't have a lot of extra go compared to it, the 360GLT was still slowly surging forwards with both our cars screaming and both cars closing in on the 70mph speed limit of that road...
It was funny the look on the BMW owners face! Overtaken by a little Volvo!

A very firm ride can be hard to "Feel". My Dad had a Ford Sierra with a 1800cc CVH engine in it. Those engines behaved normally but right at the last little bit of the acdelerator if one floored it, they seemed to have a power surge.
One day I had borrowed my Dads car for work and a customer was complaining that his bike had not arrived from the supplier. The next store in the big city had one and I was told to get in my car and go and get it (I was given 20 minutes which no way could it be done in that time). I drove to join the motorway and when I was on the curve while joining thw slipway I put my foot down. I found myself looking at the grass bank. The car position was almost at 90 degrees to the road. I assumed the steering had broken as after the corner the car had not straightened up. I automatically turned the wheel to see if I could get the car to point in the right direction and it did. I realized that the back end had come (Rear wheel drive) out and I had no indication that this had happened other then visual. The suspension was very stiff. It scared me actually!
I have had stiffish suspension with amazing handling and feel. I have
had cars with soft suspension which leans so far on a corner that if I put my arm out the window I would touch the floor. Yet they gripped the road ok. One could feel every little bit to know just how far to take it.
But this Ford.... I mentioned this to a train driver I worked with in the past, and he said one of his mates was the head of the gas board, and he also did a lot of racing in cars in his spare time as a hobby. Ford approached hom when those cars were new and I believe it was their first Ford Sierra in the country. They had invited a few companies to attend and had hired a race track. The idea was to generate sales of their new model of car and for the potential customers (Who would run fleets of these cars) to test the vehicle.
This guy, having experience of track racing went first. On a corner the car left the track and it flipped over several times. The driver was soo embarissed as it was Fords only version of their new car to show people! But he said that he just did not feel the car go. There was no warning. It to had Fords stiff suspension.
So stiffness does not always work to plan. Fords Mk 2 Fiestas were fine round corners when pushed but the XR2 had the same issue that the Sierras had. They would leave the road with no feel to it. When people raced them, it had been standard practice to take the standard versions of the car and add the XR2 engines into them as they could feel what the cars were doing and they handled better.
Later Fords like the Mondeo handled well so thwy did eventually sort out the issue.

Jakki--good to hear you're fixing up a straight-eight Roadmaster! That sounds like a ton of fun to drive.

All these nice floaty cars are tempting.

the best-riding and best-handling small car i've ever driven, was a '95 ford contour, which was loosely based on the english ford mondeo, but with some mazda genes as well, particularly in its suspension geometry and "anti-stiction" technology. this car had no dive or squat or lean in turns but rode delightfully smoothly over the worst, most pockmarked pothole-ridden frost-heaved roads in my area. the suspension was also quiet over those same road disturbances, the effect was quite serene. but the serenity was broken by the total lack of sound insulation and the very noise, raucous/rough and underpowered 1.6 liter 4-banger which was so slow that it was IMHO unsafe on the road as it didn't have the power to get out of its own way. accelerating onto a busy highway was an exercise in calculation buttressed with prayer- foot to floor, engine screaming, you just hoped to slip into a hole in the traffic stream and nothing more. i've driven diesels that had more get-up-and-go. they made a much faster v-6 powered version, but along with that power they markedly stiffened the suspension to where you could practically read braille on the pavement, you could feel and hear every little tiny pebble. nasty. and unnecessary as the 2.5 liter v6 engine was not much heavier than the 4-banger in the lower trim version.

What form of active suspension did that '95 Ford use? I'm surprised I'd not heard of it before.
As long as my car can keep up with a loaded moving truck, I have no trouble merging with just a little timing and foresight. "It is more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow."

that is true about the fast car slow thing. it was not active suspension, just well-designed. later on, ford used similar suspension bits on its first generation ford focus which thankfully had much more power and was a much better, quieter and more comfy car overall, i almost bought one. ford spent more on that suspension than was usual for an economy car, and as a result it drove like a much more expensive car. the anti-stiction tech in the strut suspension allowed it to better move in response to bumps, softening the ride over the bumpy bits while keeping it level elsewhere.

I tend to keep off Fords as here they rust too fast. However, the Focus many people love. I did hear that the early 1800cc Focuses (Petrol) had an issue. I heard of one car which n3eded a new headlamp bulb, and they had to remove the engine to get to the bulb due to the lack of space. My car. Luckily the bulb on the one easier to get to side was done. The other side would need the front bumper removed to get at it as I have large hands, but even smaller hands would not fit. The headlamp can be loosened but can't be removed without removing the bumper.
I heard that Vauxhall (UK) had developed a clutch (Manual transmission) which could be changed in 15 minutes flat. However they could not use it as the garage mechanics for their dealership objected as it would reduce the amount of work they had to do.

ty ty ty .

Going back to my comment about Fords and rust. It could be that Fords made in the USA. to the exact same design may use different steels that are less likely to rust.
I asked a steelworker why British built cars rust but German and Sweedish built cars tend to hang on for ages before they show any signs of rusting. He said the Germans and Sweeds buy their steels from the steelworks he works at (Here in Wales. Is at Port Talbot). He said the Germans and Swedish companies buy the top quality steels while the British built cars have to buy their cheap quality recycled steels to compete and it is why they pick up rust soo much faster.

its a labour of love .... but oddly enough speedometer works ,, minimal rust and came to me with 159,000 miles on it . realize this straight 8 prolly would make a better boatanchor these days ..but its got good compression .. not using any oil .. leaked some after ,, guy whom wanted to be my first bf since hubby passed ,, 13 yrs after ..claimed ASE certified MEChanic put 10 ¬ 30 wt
in it leaked out half of it in 2 weeks. This vehicle calls for straight 30W..got rid of him..would not want him working on anything . re did oil change ,, trans fluid he changed was wrong aswell ,, changed that..seems if am not doing it myself , dont bother anymore. had help from old buick OEM parts seller online.
and Thank You very much Borromeo. This beastie of a buick has as much low end torque as any diesel.

My father was chief inspector at a steel company supplying vast quantities of rolled steel for automobiles. I have followed the trade press for decades, and studied metallurgy. This is the first I've heard of the steel being at fault for corrosion. We don't have semi-stainless grades. What saves a mixture of iron and carbon from water and air is some sort of protective layer. It is generated by the chromium in Stainless steel, or applied as galvanizing or paint. Zinc coatings are self-healing from minor scratches. The factory will usually use extra protection on vulnerable areas, and try to avoid traps for mud and moisture to work in, but the beancounters carefully weigh this effort against replacement sales. Owners with frequently salted roads may buy aftermarket supplementary undercoating. My car took a bad grounding scrape, so it took a lot of fiberglass patches to save it, but looks fine, and the job was easy and cheap.

Aren't all vintage cars labors of love? I'm sorry to hear that your mechanic ripped you off but that ancient Buick Eight is going to be a real showpiece just by the fact it still exists. Very rarely do people save them--they are slow to rev (or the crankshaft can break from the torque) and they are huge and heavy...not what hot-rudders want. I wish I could see the Buick!

My brother has a Buick but it is a 2000s Century with the 3.1L V6 engine. It runs well and rides like a cloud on wheels...the interior has some vaguely Fifties features like a column selector and whatnot. It's very quiet.

My old 1996 Corolla just got some fresh headlights so I can see where it is going at night--the old ones cracked and were too dim to use. Next year I will probably register it for antique auto plates.
The next car I want to buy is either a 1940s Plymouth sedan, or a Model T Ford, 1917-1927 models. Both of those are cheap cars...but the Plymouth has a nice 6-cylinder engine, plus I get to learn to drive stick (Model Ts don't have stick shifts or really anything else for that matter) and the Plymouth would have a better ride than the old "flivvers."

But it's just as much fun hearing about everyone else and their old cars.

good skill to be able too work with fiberglass.. handy knowledge on metallurgy... as well. Glad you saved you r vehicle.

i've driven '97, '98 and '99 buick century cars, the first two rode like a boat on the water, bumps were soaked up effectively but there wasn't enough body mass to control body movements and as a result i got seasick driving those. the '99 models were considerably stiffened up but still handled poorly, they didn't bob like a boat anymore however, but AFAIC it was the worst of all worlds, sloppy handling and harsh bumpy ride. i guess in the 2000s they finally got those suspensions sorted out to where they rode well.

Sorry, I just can't let that one go, since I seldom get to correct it, and hear it far too often. The problem was not insufficient mass to control movement. It was an imbalance between the various masses and springs. The only built-in difference between the ride potential of large and small cars arises from the relative scale of the wheelbase to the bumps. The unsprung weight matters just as much as the sprung weight, as they have to swap momentum. A poor ride can also result from worn dampers, AKA Shock Absorbers.