Reverse Gear - Cars I Really Liked & Why

[midwesterner]

I think the advent of ready-to-install engines to the public came fairly late in the game. Crate motor became the term for a new engine supplied by the factory, especially high-performance engines, as opposed to buying used engines and rebuilding. Correct terminology is "engine," but the slang "motor" has been around since day one of the so-called motor age. I've also heard people refer to "crate engines," so the "motor" reference is not universal. Not sure either that there is a single, commonly accepted definition of a crate engine. Maybe somebody here knows.

[VBdenny]

A motor can mean many things, including an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor and even other specialty things. I watch Wheeler Dealers and it seems in England, they call an automobile a motor.

[13IS250C]

I always liked the saying, my car has motors, the starter and the windshield wipers. :-)

[13IS250C]

I knew a guy that ordered a '69 Camaro with tunnel-ram. The manifold and carbs came in the trunk.

[VBdenny]

My IS has electric steering so I guess those are motors? Work pretty good and I doubt I'll have leaks ever.

[midwesterner]

I think that, technically, the correct term is "engine." Dennis Simanaitis, former SAE engineer and long-time R&T tech editor, discussed the question a couple of years ago in his column, and made a distinction between an engine and a motor. I guess if you are not sitting in a physics exam it probably doesn't matter much, but I understand there is a difference.

The Brits use the term interchangeably like us, but it often has broader meaning. When I first moved there in 1996, and brought home my new Mercedes, my landlord said, "Oh, I like your motor!"

So I won't argue with anyone over "crate motor" or "crate engine."

[VBdenny]

When my buddy opened up the hood of his chevelle and I saw that sweet 454 big block I (an American) said. "I like your motor" and got a Coors light in return. The British use all kinds of odd terms. Wings, bonnets, boots, amazing we can understand them at all.

Guess it comes down to this...

Why do we Drive on a Parkway

and Park in a Driveway?

[13IS250C]

If you aren't supposed to drink and drive, why do bars have parking lots?

Love me some George Carlin.

[LEX-SV]

Beer commercials involving scenes with (street) cars are common enough.

But I'm still wondering when they started to allow pushing prescription drugs on TV.... But that's way too OT.

Ok I'm seeing heavy reverse here on the use of "reverse gear", lol. Lots of muscle cars from the 60's, certainly an era that I will never forget. I've only owned 2 V8 pony cars which I throughly enjoyed even if they weren't my favorites.

How about another reverse to air-cooled cars of the not so distant past.

I owned a Porsche '90 C2 cab for a while, talk about intense in all modes.

Pros - Quick/fast, lots of feedback (all forms), loud always (more mechanical noise than just about anything, plenty of exhaust noise too), brutal sound at high revs, menacing lumpy idle, serious race car like braking power, very good handling, a kind of Disney-land for people like me.

Cons - Weak AC, deadly snap oversteer if driven poorly (therefore I never drove it in the rain, no VSC like modern cars today), heavy steering/brakes/clutch (no big deal for those used to muscle cars), minor oil leaks expected always.

[LEX-SV]

I do see some mentions of more contemporary (like post-2000) cars described here in this thread too. I'll try to add some of those too...

[midwesterner]

Air-cooled; so you wanna hear about my Corvair Spyder? Short take: I think Nader was right (but it was pretty fast).

Two high-performance Preludes; one in the mid-90s before I moved to the U.K., a 2000 Prelude SH after I moved back. Looked good, reasonably fast and good handling, made all the right noises. But in the end, not quite a sports car.

My hat is off to anyone who has owned an air-cooled Porsche and a Boxster!

[LEX-SV]

Air-cooled Corvair, still see some around occassionally, never drove one. My ex girlfriend was 2nd owner of a 64 VW Bug, I actually enjoyed driving that thing a lot, so basic, so tight, required some skill to move briskly.

Good point about the right noises from certain Hondas. I had a 92 Prelude Si, the best sounding 4 banger at high revs that I've owned. The Mercedes C250 (1.8L DI turbo w/Lanchester balance shafts ) has the smoothest 4 banger engine that I've ever experienced, smooth all the way up to redline. I dislike most 4 cylinder engines, but these are 2 that I like very much.

Note: I've owned 2 Boxster 986's, a '98, a '04 S, both cars very different in terms of character, power, refinement. I'll give some details later.

[VBdenny]

Somewhere back in college I had a 64 1/2 Mustang with a 289. Jacked it up and put some 50's on the back. The car was junk, steered terrible, brakes marginal but man would it smoke those Mickey's

[LEX-SV]

I've driven a stock 65 Mustang fastback 289 (2 barrel carb)/4 speed/custom dual exhaust, extensively. Enjoyed it's reasonable balance, sweet sounding V8 and compact size. Braking/handling/steering/comfort by today's standards was weak. Really makes me appreciate the Mustang GT's being sold today, last one I owned was the 96 GT w/4.6L SOHC engine.

[VBdenny]

The engine WAS the best part of the Mustang. That was until it lost oil pressure and blew. The body was half Bondo from all the rust. Never had much luck with Ford vehicles.

[13IS250C]

That's why they are called Rustangs. Teeheehee

[VBdenny]

Yeah they were. Of course all cars then were really junk. Made out of cheap metal that rusted through within two years.

[13IS250C]

Yup. That is when America fell in love with Toyota, Datsun and Honda.

[LEX-SV]

We didn't notice lots of rusting in California environment, but the junky build quality was obvious when compared to the standards of today.

[midwesterner]

Actually, the early Japanese cars had significant rust problems -- original 240Zs among the worst. Southerners and West Coasters may not have experienced this,but the salt used during the winter in the East and Midwest exposed this weakness in many Japanese cars. This was happening, as I recall, just about the time U.S. and European manufacturers were introducing new metals, fasteners, and metal treatments (e.g. galvanizing) to solve the problem. During the transition, various types of body rustproofing were popular -- and I think reasonably effective -- aftermarket means of preventing rust (different than old-fashioned undercoating). I think one was called armor-something, or something-armor, but there were others, and national changes of these providers popped up all around the country.

The Japanese quickly learned the path to success was through consistent quality,and they quickly sought solutions. In the end, all the majors (U.S., Europe, Japan) made use of new technology that virtually eliminated the rust problems of prior decades, and warranties began to include rust-through. Among the problem areas were seams and fasteners, and once the techniques evolved to address these, the familiar rust spots (e.g. rocker panels) disappeared pretty fast.

Now we seldom think of rust, and a relatively late model car with rust is usually a tip-off that it's been wrecked and poorly repaired. When I lived in the U.K., it was common to see cars 10-20 years old in daily service that showed little or no rust.

[LEX-SV]

Now we seldom think of rust, and a relatively late model car with rust is usually a tip-off that it's been wrecked and poorly repaired. When I lived in the U.K., it was common to see cars 10-20 years old in daily service that showed little or no rust.

Same here in CA, where occasionally a local rusting car is seen as result of poor repair.

I wish I had the pleasure of owning a Z like this one seen last year in San Jose...

[midwesterner]

Cult following for the early Zs. I think I read something about a trend to find old Zs and restore with parts now available, sort of like that outfit down in TX is doing with Jeep Wagoneers.

[13IS250C]

I had a '77 280Z. You talking about high maintenance....SHEESH! It was a fun little car though.

GM's always rusted around the back window first. Didn't take it long either. My Z-car had rusted quarter panels. I had the car painted and damned if it didn't just come right back.

[VBdenny]

In central NYS, in the snow belt, the rust problem was so bad, cars literally broke in half. As someone so correctly pointed out, early Japanese cars were total junk. Few lasted even 5 years as the deterioration of the body and components was so bad. My father had an early 70's Datsun 510 which was perhaps the worst ever.

New cars are made so much better for corrosion resistance. For people in California, it may be difficult to comprehend just how damaging road salt is to everything on a vehicle. Cars made in the 50's - 80's were junk, the brand didn't matter. The auto makers deserved the downfall they had for producing such junk.

[midwesterner]

Different view of the world in the old days. Manufacturing processes, materials and fastener technology didn't exist to build cars (or much else) not susceptible to rust. Given the average trade-in of about 3 yrs, the cost of whatever process might have been available (galvanizing?) probably not worth the cost -- especially if the car had a first-owner life and second-owner life before rust became a problem.

My '55 Olds hardtop rusted through the upper right quarter panel because of a rubber anti-rattle below the rear window that held moisture. Rocker panels went because they filled with slush and salt in the winter, or rain in the summer, along with dirt and debris.

One of the biggest factors as probably been fastener development. No longer necessary to penetrate metal with a rivet or bolt, or crimp a seam. New chemical bonding technology and replacement of certain metal components with plastic or composite material strikes me as a big step.

It may be that manufacturers were oblivious as well, but I really think that manufacturing and materials technology is what made the change possible.