Cool bit for Phillips screws

Page 4 of 6  
On 8/15/2015 10:16 PM, krw wrote:

Well some one was bound to offer a larger Fiat with an American name on it. Just so happens it actually was Fiat.
You would think they would have learned after their first go round when I'uh'cocoa was brought in to straighten things out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Except that the Rustang II wasn't expensive at all. It was rightfully known as a Pinto in drag. There wasn't much of a cost premium for the lace.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/14/2015 6:41 PM, krw wrote:

IIRC double the price.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny tho that the Mustang II was an exceedingly popular car in it's day - you used to see them all over the place. It just goes to show how crappy the alternatives were at that time.
And Ford got the next Mustang right. I recall back when the Florida Highway Patrol had a bunch of turbo Mustangs around 1980 (they had discovered that their prior cruisers, mostly Dodges, wouldn't exceed 100mph flat out). Then, after California talked Ford into a police package based on the 302 V8, FHP used them until the CVPI came out.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2015 10:06 AM, John McCoy wrote:

Well so were the Pinto's and Vegas. It was what we had to choose from at the time if you wanted a small vehicle. Toyota was just getting into the US market a few years prior with the Corollas and they did not have a proven track record yet. Funny how that all turned out.

I don't think the Mustang, even the originals were ever designed from the ground up. IIRC originals were based on the Comet or Falcon, one of the other small vehicles. Then the Pinto, then the "Fox" body back to one of the others. I think only "after" the Fox body did the Mustang get designed from the ground up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, they got the platform right, if you prefer. And that generation had much better build quality, and didn't rust, and weren't grossly overweight and underpowered like the Mustang II. Any way you look at it, a much better car.
I think the modern Mustangs are actually based on a Jaguar platform, altho since Ford sold Jaguar I guess they're unique to the Mustang now.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ix.netcom.com says...

For certain values. The D2C was derived from the DEW that was used in the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S type. How much of that design was Jaguar and how much was Ford I have no idea, but I can't see Ford letting a subsidiary field a new design that will be sold under the Ford brand without the home team approving it first. For 2015 though the Mustang has had a ground-up redesign and is currently on a unique platform.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:57:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"

...and I don't believe Jag has a solid rear axle, like the pre-'15 Mustangs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I believe the solid axle is one of the changes that was made going from the DEW to the D2C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:04:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"

The Mustang has always (up until MY '15) has always had a solid rear axle. It's quite a big difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2015 2:19 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Absolutely, it's like what were they thinking when the Mustang II came out.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/15 4:58 PM, Leon wrote:

Ahhh, memories. :-) My second car. High school. Green and red quarter panels... the Christmas car. I learned half of what I know about auto mechanics on that summbench. Necessity is the mother of knowledge. I drove for 1/2 of junior year using only the parking brake. :-D
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:19:36 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy

Bullshit. The Japanese cars of the time rusted like hell. They were far worse than even the Detroit crap.

Nope. Not even close. The T-Bird was supposed to be based on the Jag but that was hype. Well, the whole T-Bird redux was all hype.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2015 10:21 PM, krw wrote:

I don't think he mentioned anything about Japanese cars.
I in another post mentioned the Corollas.... And while they may not have been ideal they started about 20% less expensive than the Vega and Pinto. And they did improve, which cannot be said about either of the other two. Corollas are still around 40+ years later.

The last T-Birds were based on a "dinner roll" with wheels. Or was it the PT Cruiser?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My mistake. I thought the thread had morphed to include the Japanese cars.

Yes, they certainly did improve. In the early '70s, they were no better, though. They were *very* prone to rust. Worse than any Detroit junk, even.

I thought the PT Cruiser was based, not on the bread, but on the bread box.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 11:33 AM, krw wrote:

Probably right. ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 11:33 AM, krw wrote:

One thing I never quite understood was that most new brands introduced here never bring their "A" game. Lexus and Acura probably being the only exceptions and only because Toyota and Honda were already here and had a good reputation by the mid 80's.
Yugo, Diahatsu, Fiat, again, Mini Cooper did not and or do not have a good reputation for being reliable at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How now? Are you saying the "Fox" platform cars had a rust problem? Or that 1980's vintage Hondas and Toyotas had a rust problem?
While I'll grant you that the cars of the 80's, especially the early 80's, weren't examples of classic automobile engineering, I think they did resolve a lot of the problems that cars from the 70's exhibited.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:27:00 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy

We were discussing '70s cars (Rustang II, and such).

The Japanese improved greatly in the '80s, sure. They improved before Detroit even thought about improving, for sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This branch of the thread had moved on to me saying the later Fox bodied cars were much better. Try to keep up :-)
Way way up thread I said the Mustang II was popular, because the competition was just as bad, so I agree with your premise that Japanese cars of the 70's had problems.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.