Cool bit for Phillips screws

[Ed Pawlowski]

Many of us leanred about torx when we went to replace a headlight. WTF is this thing?

[Leon]

I assure you things at GM are not cleaned up.

[Leon]

IIRC double the price.

[John McCoy]

Leon wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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

[Leon]

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.

[John McCoy]

Leon wrote in news:u7mdnRHJyZgb [e-mail]:

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

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Leon]

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

[-MIKE-]

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

[krw]

He's right about Chrysler, though. Well, except for misspelling "is".

[krw]

Not a chance. Pintos didn't go for under $1500. There may have been a couple of hundred bucks difference, but that was it.

[krw]

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.

[krw]

...and I don't believe Jag has a solid rear axle, like the pre-'15 Mustangs.

[Leon]

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.

[Leon]

Yeah they started at about $1900. I thought the Mustang II was north of $4K. I was shopping and bought the Olds Starfire in 1975 and it was based on the Vega and just shy of $5K. It was a copy of the Chevy Monza and the Buick Skyhawk.

[Leon]

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?

[J. Clarke]

I believe the solid axle is one of the changes that was made going from the DEW to the D2C.

[John McCoy]

krw wrote in news:va00tahjl10uj8lbm7psbjb70lqfvrqokm@

4ax.com:

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

[krw]

The Mustang has always (up until MY '15) has always had a solid rear axle. It's quite a big difference.

[krw]

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.