Design changes or mileage considerations?

[Lazy JW]

The venerable VW Beetle was notable for its durability back in the 50's-60's. Here was a true economy car that would consistantly go 100k, and it didn't even need an oil filter to do it. I still drive my Bugs over 100k, but the new cars easily surpass that by 2-3 times.

Yup, the older cars "could" go 100k with good maintenance, but the reality is that most of them didn't.

Anyone wanna go back to drum brakes all around?
Joe

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
20W-20 used to be the standard spec for most 1950's US cars, true. How long did they actually last before overhaul or the junkyard? I remember average engines going 60-80,000 miles and needing some kind of major internal repair. Today, If you have to pull the heads or oil pan at less than 150,000 is highly unusual.

---

How many cars had the original owner in 60-80k in the 50's..and how many had over a decade on them before reaching 50k? It's a little hard to compare. The deck is severely stacked against older engines. The fuel managment in combination with the typical service duty of the engine led to most of their comparatively early retirements ...or rather, our grossly expanded use of the automobile, coupled with superior fuel managment, has allowed us the claim of "150k of trouble free usage". I'm sure precision in machining/finishing has enhanced the modern auto experience.

 

[1sttruck]

1953 Olds 303 Rocket
Main bearings: #1,2,3,4 .0005-.003" #5 .002-0.0035"
Connecting rod bearings:.0009-.0029"

Typical Chevy LSx specs are:
Main bearings .0008-.0021"
Connecting rod .0009-.0025"

Nominal, assuming a bilateral tolerance, would be:

Rocket:
Main 0.00175
Rod 0.0019

LSx
Main 0.00145
Rod 0.0017

Which isn't much of a change, although the range is tighter on the newer engines. 'Enabling technology' for thinner oils, considering that you need to maintain an adequate oil film thickness, would include more consistent surface finishes, surface finishes with more ideal characteristics, better 'form tolerances' such as roundness, cylindricity, etc., in addition to oils with better antiwear additives and more robust base stocks. A number of 5w20 oils seem to be synthetic blends.

 

[jsharp]

Although I was young in the 60's, my recollection of the good old days is that they were more old than good. Similar to Lazy JW said.

People were always fixing stuff on cars. Plugs, points, oil changes, clutches, tires, radiators, carburetors, starters, alternators, etc. Stuff just didn't last as long and it was a big deal if someone drove a car 100K miles. Doing so without at least a valve job or some other internal engine work was even more uncommon.

From what I can see, everything we have today is better. Design, machining, assembly processes, and materials. The old stuff was just generally simple so it made it much simpler to repair.

As far as the "reliability" of old VW's all I can say is

I owned one and knew of 5 or 6 or others. Without fail those engines were way past tired in far less than 100K miles. That was in addition to all the other stuff you got to fix on the car along the way.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
Although I was young in the 60's, my recollection of the good old days is that they were more old than good. Similar to Lazy JW said.

People were always fixing stuff on cars. Plugs, points, oil changes, clutches, tires, radiators, carburetors, starters, alternators, etc. Stuff just didn't last as long and it was a big deal if someone drove a car 100K miles. Doing so without at least a valve job or some other internal engine work was even more uncommon.

From what I can see, everything we have today is better. Design, machining, assembly processes, and materials. The old stuff was just generally simple so it made it much simpler to repair.

As far as the "reliability" of old VW's all I can say is

I owned one and knew of 5 or 6 or others. Without fail those engines were way past tired in far less than 100K miles. That was in addition to all the other stuff you got to fix on the car along the way.

---

We have similar recolections of the **** old days. of the 1950s. The norm was for cars to need engine work that required at least head removal before 100k miles. I also remember early VW bug engines commonly needing at least valve work around 80,000 miles.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
Nominal, assuming a bilateral tolerance, would be:

Rocket:
Main 0.00175
Rod 0.0019

LSx
Main 0.00145
Rod 0.0017

Which isn't much of a change, although the range is tighter on the newer engines.

---

Another arm chair engine builder if you think the tighter tolerances don't substantially change the amount of oil flow across all the bearings.

 

[Lazy JW]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
Although I was young in the 60's, my recollection of the good old days is that they were more old than good. Similar to Lazy JW said.

People were always fixing stuff on cars. Plugs, points, oil changes, clutches, tires, radiators, carburetors, starters, alternators, etc. Stuff just didn't last as long and it was a big deal if someone drove a car 100K miles. Doing so without at least a valve job or some other internal engine work was even more uncommon.

From what I can see, everything we have today is better. Design, machining, assembly processes, and materials. The old stuff was just generally simple so it made it much simpler to repair.

As far as the "reliability" of old VW's all I can say is

I owned one and knew of 5 or 6 or others. Without fail those engines were way past tired in far less than 100K miles. That was in addition to all the other stuff you got to fix on the car along the way.

---

We have similar recolections of the **** old days. of the 1950s. The norm was for cars to need engine work that required at least head removal before 100k miles. I also remember early VW bug engines commonly needing at least valve work around 80,000 miles.

---

Reckon I've just been lucky then

I've had no difficulty getting 100k out of my Bugs without a teardown. 2k OCI with GTX oil, no filter. LOTS of other 'routine' maintenance though. Valve adjustments, plugs, points, air cleaner, wheel bearings, CV joints,mufflers,carb kits, brakes, brakes, brakes....(WHY couldn't they at least put self adjusters on them?). Yup, them's the good ol' days, alright

Joe

 

[1999nick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
Although I was young in the 60's, my recollection of the good old days is that they were more old than good. Similar to Lazy JW said.

People were always fixing stuff on cars. Plugs, points, oil changes, clutches, tires, radiators, carburetors, starters, alternators, etc. Stuff just didn't last as long and it was a big deal if someone drove a car 100K miles. Doing so without at least a valve job or some other internal engine work was even more uncommon.

From what I can see, everything we have today is better. Design, machining, assembly processes, and materials. The old stuff was just generally simple so it made it much simpler to repair.

As far as the "reliability" of old VW's all I can say is

I owned one and knew of 5 or 6 or others. Without fail those engines were way past tired in far less than 100K miles. That was in addition to all the other stuff you got to fix on the car along the way.

---

We have similar recolections of the **** old days. of the 1950s. The norm was for cars to need engine work that required at least head removal before 100k miles. I also remember early VW bug engines commonly needing at least valve work around 80,000 miles.

---

I once had a 67 VW beetle bought used as a second car. It required a valve job soon after I acquired it, and I had the work done at the VW dealer. While they had the engine out, I had a new clutch installed, a tune-up, and an oil change. The total bill was $190.00.

 

[1999nick]

Hey, 427Z06, that is a mighty big main bearing journal in that Honda V-6. At 2.83", it is bigger than any Chevy V-8 in a chart that I have on engines from the 1970s. Heck, a 454 only has 2.7485 - 2.7494 journals, and the 350 has 2.4484" journals. It is true that other GM engines from this era had bigger journals as did most Fords.

By the way, I have never had to rebuild an engine. The only cars I ever put over 140,000 miles on were a 1954 Ford with the Y-block V-8, and a 1986 Thunderbird. The 1954 car did it on straight 20W, and the T-Bird did it on yearly changes of Mobil 1, at about 20,000 mile intervals. Both were still quiet and not smoking or using oil at this mileage.

I think that the engines people remember as wearing out at 60- to 80,000 miles were engines designed back in the 30's, that were replaced by modern OHV V-8s in the 50's. Some of those new designs stayed in production for more than 40 years.

 

[jmacmaster]

I started driving in 1959. By the mid-70's I'd owned 3 used cars made in the mid-50's and a 64 Chevy pickup and a 68 Ford pickup. Yes, some cars in the "old" days would go 100,000 miles or more. But only a small percentage of them. It used to be a rule of thumb that a car was usually shot at 100,000 miles. Today, 100,000 miles is nothing. People WERE always fixing or replacing something in the old days. I'm especially referring to the engines and the running gear. The only thing that in my opinion was better in the old days was the body and bumpers. Definitely MUCH thicker steel. Vehicles today generally run a lot longer and are much less trouble-free. I attribute that to better design and engineering, better build quality mainly because of technological advances, and better materials.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1999nick:
I once had a 67 VW beetle bought used as a second car. It required a valve job soon after I acquired it, and I had the work done at the VW dealer. While they had the engine out, I had a new clutch installed, a tune-up, and an oil change. The total bill was $190.00.

---

Things were certainly simpler then and mostly cheaper. Some things would get you though. I had a '60 VW in 1972 and the turn signal switch assembly went bad. None in any wrecking yards I could find and $45 at the dealer. To a kid making $2.05 an hour it wasn't all that cheap, especially since I only paid $50 for the car...

 

[1sttruck]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 1sttruck:
Nominal, assuming a bilateral tolerance, would be:

Rocket:
Main 0.00175
Rod 0.0019

LSx
Main 0.00145
Rod 0.0017

Which isn't much of a change, although the range is tighter on the newer engines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another arm chair engine builder if you think the tighter tolerances don't substantially change the amount of oil flow across all the bearings."

You don't seem to understand the difference between nominal dimensions and tolerances. The nominal dimensions on the rods above changed 0.0002 inches, for a 10% change. The tolerance range on the newer rod is 0.0009 inches, which is 4.5x the 'substantial change' that you're referring to. If you think that a 0.0002 inch difference is what enables a change in oil viscosity, then you'll somehow have to provide for separate oil tanks with different viscosities feeding each bearing based upon it's clearance, and allow for wear over time.