Chinese still thieves regarding technology

some deleted

My first minivan was a 1989 GMC Safari (Astrovan family). It rode like a truck because it was built on a truck frame, unlike the Caravan/Vogagers, which were unibodies like most cars. Like a truck, it actually rode better with a load. Handling sucked without a doubt.

I've driven many minivans since my old GMC Safari, including the Nissan Quest and Ford Aerostar. I was favorably impressed with the Quest when a car merging onto a busy highway in a driving rain in Florida decided to cut me off. I had to lock up the wheels and steer away from the fool at 65 mph. I'm still here, so I was successful. Oh, and as a former owner of a 1967 Impala SS (my first car) w/airshocks that brought the trunk up to chest height, it looked cool but was a horrible ride. ;-)

Agreed. 60's and 70's land yachts tucked under on a fast curve. My T&C would smoke most of them in handling.

Ah, here's where we part company. While 240 SAE HP is OK for a minivan, many musclecars of the 60's and early 70's were actually derated for insurance purposes. Chrysler under-rated the 426 Hemi by a ton as did GM with its L88 Corvette. Ford, well, what can I say about Ford..... ;-) As for the new Cobras, they're garage queens, not fast cars. I'd eat them for lunch. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Uh, sounds like you might have some issues that can't be addressed by a technical discussion.

Nonetheless, I'll take my van over most older sedans when it comes to handling. You must not have driven a lot of 60's and 70's "family cars" - you want to talk crappy handling, get in something like a late

60's Chevy or Chrysler sedan (Impala, or Newport, something like that), or any of the classic muscle cars. Not only do they plow like tractors at any significant G, they roll severely, and the tires can be rolled off the bead with frightening ease - then you got rollover problems. The other big issue is that while you might have "425 hp" in your 426 4-barrel family car, you still only have tiny drum brakes. Fairly easily gets up to 100 mph, where you can cruise all day. But try an emeergency stop, and my the time you get down 85, might as well open the door and try dragging your foot, cause the brakes are long gone and won't be back for 10 minutes.

BTW, cruising at 90+ for hours with original tires was not a really good idea. We did that all the time in our '66 Chrysler Newport, down the Oklahoma Turnpike. One time, my dad decided to get new tires while we were down visiting family in Arkansas. We went over to cousin Bobby Dale's tire shop and he gave us a deal. The tires had been making a sort of thumping noise like they were out of balance. When we dismounted them, my dad looked in the tire, reached in and pulled something out, and said, "hey, look at this". What he had was a double handful of shredded rubber. Apparently, the 14x6 bias-ply tires (cheapedst he could find, no doubt) had begun to disintegrating under the load of a 5000 lb car at 95 mph for 6 hours. We kept to the speed limit (80) on the way home.

SUV's are a different argument. Nonethless, I strongly suspect that the majority of SUV incidents involving handling issues are more from people being careless. They generally *don't* handle all that well, but they aren't intrisically dangerous. They just take better car control to drive safely.

I understand your point of view, however. When I was a teenager, the hot "kids first car" was a CJ-5 jeep. The girls thought they were "cute", the boys all thought they were going to be Parnelli Jones in the Baja 1000. Of course, the handling characteristics of the CJ-5 were, in a word, apalling, so all it took was a momentary lapse, overcorrection, and over it goes. A girl I knew was coming back from the simming pool. She wandered onto the shoulder, which had about a 1" drop. She apparently yanked it back on the road, got into a classic tank-slapper, and over it went. Got her head between the roll bar and the ground when it hit, even though she had the lap belt on (no shoulder belt in the CJ-5 of the era). Predictable results.

Brett

What you talkin'? It handles like a boat!

Jerry

I had one and I knew my place on the road :-)

Impalas were the worst, my uncle had one and cursed every time he drove it. :-D my father restores 64-66Mustangs and the ride is appalling, but in it's time it was not *too* bad....when he get one done I'll take it for a ride, the '68 390 GT was a lot of fun, handled like a truck and since it was made for the strip had no power steering.....it was no fun to park.....the 64 convertibles were noisy, clunky and even with a new steering box you always have a dead spot and have to saw on the wheel ......yeah my first car was a '67 Mustang fastback, it was great, open the trap door to the trunk and we could get the skis inside the car!! But I stayed away from the oversized cars, I never had a hankerin' for a lead sled

You didn't keep an anchor! :-)

Sad story......but it happens all too often, a few years back (I didn't know any of them as they were from the next town over) a kid had 4 high school kids in the back of his pickup and rolled it, what a crime that was......all 4 died :-( Of all the things I've done in this world the scariest was letting the kids get their driver's license, you just have to hope you've taught them well enough and they live through it.

Chuck

>

That sucks. When our son was a senior he went with his best friend and a couple other buddies to Disneyland, and came home late. The came to our house first, and Steven got the other boys to spend the night here. But his best friend insisted on driving home, and was killed shortly after leaving here when he fell asleep at the wheel.

I began driving in 1969 in my dad's 1964 Ford Econoline van. It had a straight axel front end with the motor between the drive and passenger seats. It also had three on the tree and 14" rims coupled to really fade-prone brakes. In a breeze it was pretty busy behind the wheel. My buddy's VW van was way worse and in fact, we put it on its side while doing

65 mph on I-15 headed back to LA from Vegas. A cross wind hit us and we just rolled up on two wheels and went over on our side. We were lucky. No fire and no injuries other than scrapes. Hmmph, no seat belts either. I have owned lots of cars from an S1 Lotus Europa to a 1941 Dodge Power Wagon Army Hospital truck. I've also had two Aerostars, an 89 and a 94. Neither were great handling cars but then again, neither were too difficult either. I briefly owned a 1971 Dodge Polaris that I bought used from the CHP. 440, big double pump Holly, 7 mpg. I ran it at 90+ several times across Montana..sorta scary as the pwr steering was real loose. Present I drive a 2002 Ranger Edge. Nice truck, rides well and handles pretty good for a truck. My wife drives a Ford Exploder, a 2000 2 door Sport 2x2. It rides like a brick and handles like a pig. I feel decidedly unsafe in it. She loves it. Go figure.

Believe it or not, one of the best handling cars that I've owned is my

1999 Neon Expresso. It has tight rack and pinion steering, doesn't float at high speed (I cruise at 80mph or so), doesn't mind crosswinds and can take turns pretty well. The jury's still out on my recently acquired 94 Z28. Since its suspension is set up for 1/4 mile action, it's a stiff ride. I haven't taken enough high speed turns to really gauge its handling, though. With a 4.10 rear and no overdrive, I won't be taking it for any long highway trips in the near future, either.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Van handling? Is that standing on the street corner and soliciting handouts from people driving vans?

Doug

I remember well making the mistake of commenting about old cars poor handling to a friend of mine who owned a '70 Challenger 440 R/T.

A positively terrifying ride through the north Ga. mountains changed my mind. Modern tires, shocks, and a suspension that has not been neglected for decades make a world of difference.

Regarding the CJ-5, my cousin was killed in high school when he rolled his CJ. He was not wearing a belt and the rollbar landed on his head.

Well, of course it works if you fix it!

Brett

Exactly. There's lots of exotic stuff out there today, and features like automatic ride height adjustment are on the verge of proliferating, which means that soon trucks and cars can handle well over a much wider range of load conditions.

But until recently, the biggest improvement in suspension technology for the prior 30 years has been the radial tire. Lots of those ill-handling 60's cars suddenly behave very modern with some radials.

Doug

It just seems a lot of people base their opinion of old car handling on their aunt's 20+ year old neglected vehicle.

And modern tires are the trick. Put some polyglass Goodyears on a new vette and see what you have ;-)

Hey Mark,

My first car was a 67 Impala SS too, but mine was a convertible. Horrible rust bucket, but the top went down and that 283 small block always started!! It demanded constant attention at speed with those massive power steering units, you didn't have enough feedback through the steering wheel to actually drive it properly, and boy did they push during hard cornering. Man I loved that car - sadly it is in car heaven (sniff...). I will own another one someday (hopefully one I can restore with my kids)!

Speaking of rockets................. oh hell, who am I kidding, I can't get this subject back to rockets even if I tried.

Peace, Eric TARS #639

Oh puhleeeze Eric! You just didn't try hard enough!

Impala? JATO? Come *on*!

tah

"Doug Sams" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mygate.mailgate.org:

No, sounds to me like the name of a bad German tribute band.

len.

Close. My first car was a 66 Impala with the same 283... Needed just about everything replaced when I got it, and I dumped it when the gas prices skyrocketed a few years later. Still, it got me to a lot of rocket launches. I flew more rockets in the year I got my license than I had in 6 previous years!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I drove something with a 283 in it to ldrs 21 a 57 chevy, see link Its got a

350 in it now gets way better gas milage with a 4 barrel + lots more power and a lot more fun!!! i do have to say the 283 is one good motor always ran even after it ate 6 lobes off the cam I think its going to get refreshed the put in my 66 chevy 2 nova Also have a 77 chevy 1 ton van/bus handles real good untill you get it sideways or get it up to about 95-100 then it can get real white nuckle but you can put 1500 lbs in it and cant even tell its there

Steve McCue

A 283 fit snuggly (think shoehorn) in my '62 Chevy II.

Dave

The 283 was an indestructible engine. I can remember tooling around at about 70 mph in my 67 Impala SS with my hand resting on the Powerglide's shifter when I hit a bump and accidentally downshifted into low gear. My tach immediately jumped past 7200rpms before I got it back into high gear. There was barely any noticable float even. Not bad for a motor that had over 150,000 miles on it at the time. Nowadays, you won't find a small block Chevy reving over 7k. For one thing, rev limiters kick in before then and they don't make any power over ~6000rpm typically.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers