[AMC-list] Cars, Clunkers and Greenup

[jerijan@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Greetings,
Can't resist this topic...
Having two sides to my mouth I'll take both sides quickly...
1-Old cars are here already.  They do not have to be 'produced', thus "REUSE,
not RECYCLE" is the greenest of all.
 a-No Steel, plastic, 'composition', no NOTHING needed.  Just the 'keep it up
stuff'.
 b-Choosing well, the consumption of resources (oil, gas, etc) should be no
real problem as, say a 60's Rambler six was a 'compact' whose 'utility' is
'economy' (of resources, of labor (read that 'reliability'), of financial
resources (it should not empty your bank account any more than a comparable
sized car of today).  
 c-"Coolness" factor.  Put your Rambler next to anything 10 years old or
newer and what will draw the eyeballs?  I'm not suggesting a Ferrarri mind
you...I'm talking about, shall we say, 'normal-everyday' stuff.  BORING!  
 d-Pollution: the old stuff 'breathes' out of a rubber tube aimed at the
ground giving some real visible results (that 'black yuck' which is in the
center of traffic lanes)..they drip oil, snort out blowby and sundry other
noxious fumes (it IS fortunate these cars are but a small minority), and can
suck fuel at a prodigious rate (the two 'suckiest' American Motors culprits
NOT counting the SCRambler and Machine types?  4V327's (13MPG) and
JeepGrandWagoneer (8-12).  At $4 a gallon, the Jeep is just about unusable if
you are on any kind of budgetary constraint.  I put Edlebrock Manifold with
Edlebrock 4V carb (which is really a Weber) in place of the 2V on the Jeep to
IMPROVE Milage (it did)).  
There is an old adage which says 'You cannot eat your cake and have it too'
(that means you can't use something and then have it back)...but kind of in
this case, we can..but we can 'have our cake and eat it too'...as long as we
eat slowly.  But once gone...ITS GONE!

2-New Cars...are more reliable, more just about everything (it's call
'progress' folks).  Of course another 'more' is 'expensive'.  NEW that
Rambler might have cost $2500 ('contempory' dollars, of course), whereas a
new 'in the Rambler class' (read that 'the car bought today by the
personality who would have bought that Rambler then') is going to bang you
$15grand up.  (Hundai and KIA ain't that class although now both are pretty
'value' purchases...what you get for your money vs it's cost.)  Some
'factlets';
 a-Had a Dodge Colt ("New" here defined as 'modern' and 'improved' over our
relics)..maxed out at 44MPG.  No repairs of consequence in near 100,000 miles
exept alternator.  No oil use.  Cheap to buy, run, keep, fix.  
 b-Had a '60 Olds which replaced said Colt...Fuel costs increased FIVEFOLD
(from 40 to 10, and from 'regular' to 'super'.  Actual costs: Colt $20 a week
for fuel, Olds $100.  OUCH!!
 c-GrandWagoneer; see above milage.  If it uses THAT much fuel, it HAS to be
pumping out LOTSANDLOTSANDLOTS of noxious stuff...just gots ta!  This winter
past, while using it to move my household across town it was averaging close
to 4MPG, up to 6 (in 4WD local).  There is NOTHING I can say negative about
that vehicle with the exception of unbelieveablely poor fuel consumption...SO
bad I put a 4bbl on in place of the 2 (bumped it up by 2 overall, but I've not
fully 'checked it out' yet.  But it HAS to a polluter.  Can't NOT be.  
 d-DodgeRam1500.  3.9 V6 has serious snot, but unfortunately the '96 was born
with a plethora of, shall we say, 'birthdefects'.  If you have a 35 gallon
fuel tank, you can assume there is a message somewhere.  (By the way, 35 X $4
is $140 for a fillup..UGH)..)  The actual milage I expect 'deadhead' is 25 but
I've not yet gotton close.  Since I'm knocking down just over half of
'expected' either something is 'amiss' or the expectation is corrupt.  When
the new ECU is installed I'll update you..
 
More on this stuff later...gotta go see if I can make trouble amoung the
troops...
Jj


_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com