Cars!

[kirbyklekter]

I was surprised

when I googled Chrysler Slant Six to learn that this engine had a longer run than I thought. 1959-2005. Like others have said, it was used in other applications such as farm equipment,industrial pumps and the like. So not sure when they stopped using them in new cars.The last time I saw a car with said engine was in a Dart GT and the owner had ordered the car with an added sport pkg, painted metallic gold with black vinyl top and twin pipes,on and on.

So I turned and asked my friends dad why do you think this guy ordered all the bells and whistles, tricked it out and then just went with a 6 banger? He said, the guy obviously knows what he's doing, that's a hell of an engine.

 

[suckolux]

They did have high performance options I think they called it the hyper pack in the late 60s maybe like four barrel and headers! I had a 68 Plymouth valiant with the 225 super 6 it might have been a two barrel I don't remember too long ago, but my best friend had a 66 Bel air with a 283 four-barrel and at the stoplight drag race I could kick his butt torque

 

[kirbyklekter]

@suckolux

I rode shotgun more than once in friends cars at red light races where we had our butts served up on silver platters. The look on my friends faces as the opposing driver waves buh bye and we're left saying what the? Was your '68 Valiant an automatic or stick?

 

[suckolux]

It was a very fancy Signet 200,2 dr sedan, drs car. Torqueflite

 

[madman]

I think the slant six stopped being in cars in the late 70s, and stopped being in trucks probably in the late 80s. But it's not uncommon for good old fashioned bullet-proof engines to continue to be in demand long after they stop going in cars. Look at I think it's the Chevy 454, they literally haven't stopped making them since the 60s... still make 'em!

Marine use was easily another use for the slant 6. I mean, if you wanted a 6 cylinder for a boat engine, you probably wouldn't want anything else.


@human - my LeBaron also has the vinyl sack you describe... it has two drain tubes that allow any water to drain out on the street.

 

[kirbyklekter]

@ MadMan

Chevy has a crate engine that is really popular and I think it's somewhere around 560. Do you know if it's a big bore 454 or a different block altogether. The compression ratio on my Chevelle 454 was 11.0 with the high domed pistons, I wonder what this big boy comes as. I imagine a lower ratio now days.

@suckolux Did your car have push button or had they stopped doing that. My grandparents '59 Desoto had the lighted buttons. Very "Jetsons" back then. I loved that car. Unfortunately he popped a freeze plug on the engine about half way across the bay bridge and they made him drive it to the other side which cooked the engine. I would have sued Cal Trans. Grrrr!

 

[weltron]

My daily driver is a 2005 Chevy Impala. I like the car a lot, but compared to the car that it replaced (1999 Olds Aurora), it's just not the same.

My weekend/fun/dream car is my 2001 Olds Aurora 4.0 Has 172,000 miles on it and goes like a dream. I say I get more smiles per gallon out of that car then any other car.

 

[human]

I had a couple of first generation Auroras, a 1998 model that got wrecked and a 1995 model that replaced it a few years later. The '98 model was a wonderful car and I was completely sickened (but thankfully not at all injured) when it got totaled. The '95 model had some issues that I was never able to fully resolve. I spent way too much money on it and finally threw in the towel a couple of years ago and donated it to the local public radio station. I put a link below for an Aurora enthusiasts' forum that I used to be much more active on.

I had a 2011 Impala up until last December, when it got rear-ended and totaled. I think it was a later body style than your 2005, although they both were on the 'W-body' platform. Although it never captured my heart the way the Aurora did, especially the '98 model, It was quite a nice car in its own right. The design was well thought out with lots of good interior storage and a cavernous trunk. It was also absolutely the most mechanically reliable car I've ever owned. I had it for five years and never once had a major repair. Other than putting a set of tires on it, nothing ever went wrong with the car that I couldn't handle myself.

https://aurorah.proboards.com/

 

[weltron]

@human

I've had 3 Auroras so far. The 99, the 2001 and a 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up with another first generation one eventually. The 99 was kinda rough when I bought it, but I fixed its issues and then drove it for a year and 30,000 miles. It so far is one of the most reliable cars I've ever had. What did it in was undercarriage rust. One of the spring mounts in the rear was giving out and then the engine cradle bushings started going bad.

The Impala's I like. Like you said, they're a nice car in their own way. I would love to have one of the newer ones. I had one as a rental and I loved it.

They weren't lying when they said "There's a Special Feel in a Oldsmobile". The Impala's are great cars but man, those Auroras are something special.

 

[human]

I haven't driven or ridden in the most recent iteration of the impala but my present daily driver is a 2013 Buick LaCrosse, which is built on the same Epsilon II extended platform. In many ways, it feels like a thematic successor to the Aurora. I imagine mine would feel more Aurora-like if it had the 3.6L, 300hp V6. Mine is the 4cyl hybrid, which gets great gas mileage for its size but performance at best is adequate but not exciting.

 

[madman]

@kirbyklekter, I believe that's the one. A 454 that they just bored out more and more.

 

[weltron]

@human

If you can sometime, take a newer V6 Impala for a drive. With that V6, it's downright quick for what it is and will pull 30 on the highway. It's really a very nice car.

On a side note, one time I had my 99 Aurora on a road trip. Managed to get 28.4 mpg with the V8. I was pretty impressed.

 

[human]

My '98 Aurora, which I believe would have been mechanically identical to your '99, would get 28 mpg or a little better, which I also found amazing. The '95 was a little thirstier. About the best I ever got on the highway with it was about 24, which was only a hair better than a '97 Cadillac DeVille I briefly owned, which topped out at 23 on the highway. I'm sure the V6 Impala or LaCrosse would be a real kick in the pants. The DeVille had a 300hp Northstar V8 and even at 4,000 pounds, that car would flat out move.

The LaCrosse hybrid, on the other hand, will do 27 in town and 37 on the highway. I suppose the fuel economy is a worthwhile trade-off for the comparative lack of horsepower. The hybrid system is a little weird. Rather than taking over for the gas engine, it uses the electric induction motor, which doubles (triples?) as a starter and alternator, in tandem with the the little four-banger to supplement its modest power to the tune of an extra 15hp during hard acceleration. Interestingly, the car has no exterior badging to indicate it is a hybrid. The only external indicator, if one knows what to look for, is a lack of cutouts for dual exhaust on the rear bumper. My mother has a nearly identical car and when my dad bought it, he was in complete denial that it was a hybrid because of the lack of badging. Although he understood the function of the recursive braking system, I'm not sure whether he ever fully accepted that the car was a hybrid.

 

[brando_husky]

You guys and your good mpgs hah. 


 


My best vehicle for gas mileage barely does 23. That's the Subaru wrx.


 


My daily driver, 08 sl550 Mercedes does 13/16 depending how I drive it


 


The Tahoe gets 15/18 or so.


 The bmw 525i gets 16mpg 


The Mercedes 560sl roadster gets 16 or so


 


The old Ford f100 averaged 7.2 highway driving 430 miles from Salt Lake City to Vegas 

 

[kirbyklekter]

My first reaction

when I read human's '97 Cadillac could get 23 mpg on highway was wow,that's great. I think here on the west coast our cars are more burdened with smog equipment, at least I think they are. I know we have 15% ethanol in a gallon of fuel. Price per gallon compared to the national average, through the roof!

I borrowed an Astro Van,Chevy, a while back. It had their Vortec V-6 engine and I was really impressed with the power and mileage. The other two vans they own,(large printing company) were special order Chevy Vandura 3.75 vans capable of carrying 1 and 3/4 tons of printed stock. Hardly any emission equipment on the 350 v-8 and you could burn leaded or unleaded fuel. Carrying no payload 16mpg, with full payload 9mpg, maximum on flat land!

Best mileage is my '89 Acura Integra,25-32mpg.
Worst mileage, but more fun, '70 Chevelle SS 454,9mpg. Cheveron 93 octane .41per gal. not a concern really!

 

[suckolux]

Not surprised with the caddy, my Park Ave did 27 highway and I fly! Landlady has a DeVille, actually shorter than my Buick and it does 24 highway. it would help if they would actually put the required premium in it but they're too cheap

 

[rivstg1]

my fleet

I'm currently doing some restorative work on a '65 Buick Riviera that I picked up last year ( electrical, mechanical (windows/hidden headlights), and mostly interior work.

My '57 Cadillac Sedan Deville runs like a top, still need a few electrical things , and about to replace the seat covers etc).

'89 Jeep Grand Wagoneer I"ve had for 7 years is finally running good again...now needs some cosmetic work and the interior headliner/seats are failing.

plenty to keep me busy!

 

[brando_husky]

Kirbyklekter


 


No difference in mechanics on cars in different parts of the country. Some areas are less likely to have ethanol fuel as the only option but from what I've seen it's nationwide common to see ethanol fuel predominantly. Especially in Midwest 

 

[human]

California Emissions...

My '98 Aurora was sold new in San Francisco and the RPO code sticker in the trunk showed it was equipped with California emission controls so there must have been a difference but I'm not sure what it was. That said, I do remember car ads in the mid-'70s showed a second set of slightly lower fuel economy numbers for California cars.

 

[lesinutah]

Impala

I wouldn't suggest this car at all. The car has way too much body roll.

 

[madman]

lol I've been fighting my LeBaron tooth and nail to get the 14.9 mpg I'm getting right now. That's city driving, mind you. The brakes were holding, so I did pads, calipers, and hoses all the way around, and that got it up from 13 mpg. Now when I'm stopped at a light, and let go of the brakes, the car will roll freely. Also did spark plugs, wires, air and fuel filters, oxygen sensor, replaced the leaking gas tank (which I thought would've helped, but didn't!!), and cleaned the throttle body and IAC valve. Also sealed up a couple of minor vacuum leaks.

It's got the digital mpg readout on it. It does this stupid thing where if I don't let up off the gas pedal ever so slightly, and press the clutch to get it out of gear, the mpg drops to 1 and SLOWLY climbs back up even though I'm coasting. So I drive really carefully to keep the number up. I think that thing screws with the numbers, but I don't really know if it's actually dumping extra fuel in the engine during that time.

 

[kirbyklekter]

Ethanol

I've heard and read horror stories about how ethanol that was more than a couple months old in a cars fuel tank or in garden equipment whatever, that it gummed up fuel injectors or ate gaskets in carbs, on and on. I haven't had any problems yet so I don't know how true this is but the complaints are many.One guy wrote that he drives almost two hours to another county to get gas with less or no ethanol just for his lawn mower! Said he's tired of rebuilding the carb on his Troy mower!

 

[weltron]

A Couple Points

@human

When you reference your 98 Aurora as being certified for California Emissions, the only thing I could think of was the catalytic converters were CARB certified. Otherwise the car had no additional changes that I am aware of. I know for 2000, the big thing was the Northstar V8 in California became CARB certified as a "low emissions vehicle".

You're right in saying that back in the 70s there was different ratings for California cars. Back then depending on model, it could be something simple as just a different carburetor to the addition of a smog pump, tuning or California exclusive drivetrains (anyone remember the 1980 Corvette with a 305 and 3 speed auto?). Or you could just be like Honda with CVCC and run none of that garbage.

I had a neighbor who had a 1998 Cadillac Deville d'Elegance. They would take that car to trips to Key West and would swear up and down that the car would pull 30 mpg all the way down and back. I find that actually believable. I've talked to a couple of Deville and Aurora owners who say the same thing. The Northstar was rather ahead of its time in that regard.

 

[human]

RE: Ethanol...

I remember back in the late '70s when gas stations would proudly advertise they sold "gasohol" and then after the initial novelty faded, the euphemism became "ethanol enhanced," which to me seemed like a contradiction in terms since ethanol in gasoline is more of an adulteration than an enhancement. In concentrations greater than 10 percent (E10), ethanol is bad news for most cars unless they're Flex-Fuel vehicles, which have Teflon coatings on most of the fuel system parts to prevent ethanol damage. Although my 2011 Impala was a flex fuel vehicle, I never tried running E85 in it, mainly because gas stations around here that even sell the stuff are very few and far between.

Most stations around here sell only E10 gasohol but there are a few that offer non-ethanol gasoline, usually for anywhere from 80 cents to a dollar more a gallon. When gasohol was first becoming prevalent about ten years ago, the difference in fuel economy and performance was quite noticeable in the Cadillac I had at the time. Gas mileage would drop about 20 percent from about 16 around town to about 13. Likewise, performance was also reduced. My anecdotal evidence seems consistent with guidance in the owner's manual for my flex-fuel Impala, which recommended against high ethanol fuels, even though the car was designed to accommodate them since they would reduce both fuel economy and performance. The explanation the manual gave is that ethanol stores less potential energy by volume than gasoline, which makes perfect sense to me.

Aside from that, the main problem with gasohol is a relatively short 'shelf life'. When it is stored for more than a very few months, it attracts moisture, which contaminates the fuel, and the ethanol will eventually separate out of the gasoline. I'm not sure whether it sinks to the bottom of the tank or floats on top, but it's a good idea when a vehicle hasn't been driven in a while to add fresh fuel to the tank before driving it much so the turbulence of new fuel coming in will mix everything back together and any moisture contamination will be diluted. Similarly, I always give the gas can for my lawnmower a little shake before filling the mower and when mowing season's over, I pour whatever remains in the can back into one of my cars so I can start off with fresh fuel in the spring.

 

[madman]

Ethanol

All the bad crap you hear about it are old wives' tales. Some of it has some loose basis in reality, but the short story is that it's actually better than gasoline in every conceivable way with the exception of energy density. And on that point it's only a 10% difference, so not a big deal.

There is no such thing as 'ethanol damage.' Ethanol is just vodka, it's a solvent, yes, however gasoline is 10 times as harsh of a solvent. So all the fuel system components can easily handle it. Again, you're hearing old wives' tales. The notion that it could cause damage is from lingering bad memories of Methanol with an 'M.' Another type of alcohol sold as a gasoline alternative in the 1970s, which is actually an even harsher solvent than gasoline and does cause damage. Hence where the old wives' tales originate from.

As for lawn equipment, well, it's all still carbureted. I've heard some people say that small engines don't run so well on 10% ethanol. Maybe. I've never had a problem. Maybe the carbs simply need to be adjusted?

As for gas sitting around... that's never a good thing, period. It's not meant to sit around. Also, gas is formulated differently nowadays. It's meant to evaporate easily, which it does when left around, so you're left with bad gas. Apparently this used to not be the case decades ago, when it was formulated to NOT evaporate easily.

TLDR: don't fear ethanol. It's actually good, 10% is fine. Some cars may not agree with E85, but it won't harm anything.

 

[suckolux]

Out west here in California, we even have winter and summer blends of fuel!Ethanol percentage blends, I think, I know the mileage drops

 

[kirbyklekter]

That's true

Also the summer blend is higher in price. A rep from Chevron says it costs more to formulate the summer blend. He said it has nothing to do with demand. That's funny, because it always takes a hike upwards just before most holidays and that IS related to demand.

My sister was selling her Chrysler Town & Country van. The interested buyer would be here the next day. The van had been sitting for two years not driven. I was concerned about trying to use two year old gas, but there was no time to drain the tank and all that goes with that so I poured a pt. of Barryman's Chemtool for fuel injection equipped engines into the tank.

We waited until morning to attempt starting the van. Kicked right over and we've got ignition Houston! I don't know if that helped but I didn't think it would hurt anything. Who knows what lurked in the bottom the the fuel tank, 238K miles driven, and three owners. Anyway...Sold!

 

[human]

We have summer and winter blends here in N.C. as well. I think its nationwide. The summer blend usually comes to the stations sometime around April. The price generally starts trending upward in march when supplies tighten as Gulf Coast refineries shut down for maintenance and to switch over to summer formulations. There are predictable demand spikes just ahead of the extended Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day weekends.

I'm not sure when winter formulation generally returns, October maybe?, but I usually get better gas mileage in cooler weather. I filled up yesterday and noticed an immediate improvement in mileage over what I'd been getting the past few months so maybe it's already here.

 

[fan-of-fans]

Impala

We had 2006 Impalas when I was in driver's ed (summer 2006). They were still on the old W-body platform which I think went back to '88, but all new sheet metal and interior for '06. Ours were base models, cloth split bench seat up front with a column shifter.

I loved that car for some reason. I remember reviews at the time said it was "dated", and it did to me remind of an older car, but that's what I liked about it. I thought the front end looked a bit like a '94-'01 Lumina.

And it did turn out they made that body style Impala for quite a long time. It was in production through the 2016 model year alongside the all new 2014+ model, I think mostly for fleets and rentals. One thing I didn't like was in later years they "deleted" the Impala emblems that were behind the rear wing windows. Although they were always there on the new '14+ body style.

I wanted an LTZ Impala when I got my first car a few years after driver's ed, but even the '06es were too expensive. So I got an '01 Malibu which was a great car, but at the end it needed a transmission rebuild and I didn't feel like fixing it. I actually drove it that way for a while. I felt bad dumping it but I wanted to move on to something more modern.

Still wanted an Impala of the '06-16 gen when I replaced it as I thought that would be a logical upgrade and familiar, but I couldn't find any. I should have test drove one of the new models, but ended up at the Ford dealer instead.

Another car I really wanted to try was a Kia Optima or Hyundai Sonata. They only sell Kias here though and I couldn't find a used Optima equipped the way I wanted. But they are both beautiful cars.

 

[fan-of-fans]

My grandfather used to be a car salesman, and though he had gotten out of that business when I was growing up he always was getting a different car or truck.

He had a '96 Century, a Chrysler LeBaron at some point, then a '99 Taurus, all bought new at the time. I think he liked the Taurus because he kept it for about 5 years which was a rarity.

Around 2004 he got a new style at the time Chevy Malibu but for some reason he didn't like it. Traded that on a Chevy Aveo and he REALLY didn't like that. I still don't know why he thought it would be an improvement over the Malibu. No idea! LOL Eventually he got a Buick LaCrosse in 2005 which reminded me a lot of the 2006 Impala and it was a pretty good car, and like the Taurus he kept it about 4 or 5 years, but after that only got Honda SUVs.

Usually along with the "new" car he would have an older car as well, or a new truck. When he had the '04 Malibu he got a used '94 Buick Regal. It was a beautiful aqua green with a tan interior. I get the impression he really loved that car as he would drive it when he'd come to visit more than that new Malibu and I remember riding in it a lot.

He also had at one point a '92 Buick Skylark. It was very basic and had manual windows and locks, which I thought was odd for a Buick. That one was supposed to become my first car, but it didn't end up happening and I didn't get my first car until about 5 years after. Not sure what happened to it but I guess he sold it on.