Do we need to run through all the times when you had no sense of humor for off topic, or bashing, in threads you started?
Thought exercise - what was wrong with my old Chevy?
- Thread starter wavinwayne
- Start date
My my my you've certainly done a 180 from your posts in the Motel Room thread...
I don't remember any of those posts being humorous. Mine was...even you can see that...
There wasn't any humor in those posts, just bashing, and calling me a liar...
You're missing the point. In that thread, you were the one complaining when others were trolling. Here, it's you that's trolling.
Back in those days computer aided design was practically non-existent. The tolerances on assembly were nowhere near as nice as they are today. How many of you remember having to use the proper number of shims for a starter motor. Nowadays they just line right up. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.
No, I was complaining about those who were basically calling me a liar...
LOL If you say so.
If y'all are going to fight, go outside! You aint doing it in the house. If you keep on, I'm going to make you go pick your own switch for me to beat you with. 
I had an 89 Caprice with 332k miles when it got retired due to rust. It did not smoke at all. Not normal operation. I think you're trying to say that they were junk?
Late 70’s/early 80’s GM cars were really hit and miss for QC - some were bulletproof; some came apart as they drove off the lot.
Dad had a 78 Malibu wagon 305 V-8…everything that went wrong on these cars did - paint problems, overheating, trans problems, cam problems…
Step-father years later had a 79 Olds Cutlass wagon with the 3.8 V-6 that had been a cab and had who knows how much mileage - it had a few issues over the 4 years he had it, but it was generally a very good car. Crank did break on it at the end, but it must have had over 200k miles at that point.
Dad had a 78 Malibu wagon 305 V-8…everything that went wrong on these cars did - paint problems, overheating, trans problems, cam problems…
Step-father years later had a 79 Olds Cutlass wagon with the 3.8 V-6 that had been a cab and had who knows how much mileage - it had a few issues over the 4 years he had it, but it was generally a very good car. Crank did break on it at the end, but it must have had over 200k miles at that point.
In '81 we intended to buy a new Buick Skylark. The dealer had 2 of them on the lot. The dash was torn out of one of them and the sales guy couldn't get the second one to start - even with a battery booster. So we walked away and bought a Toyota Celica 5 speed liftback a few days later. That was a great car.
That was perhaps not the best era of GM quality.
That was perhaps not the best era of GM quality.
Thing that is ‘scary’ is the it wasn’t their best era of quality; but it was their best era for sales!
In 1978, I think, GM as a whole had some like 78% of the new car market, insane. I know on my street growing up in the early 80’s, almost everything was a GM vehicle.
In 1978, I think, GM as a whole had some like 78% of the new car market, insane. I know on my street growing up in the early 80’s, almost everything was a GM vehicle.
Those skylarks and similar vehicles were definitely not very good. GM only really made good full-size cars and trucks back then.
You're absolutely right. I used to follow Consumer Report's annual problem reports quite closely. The full size GM and full size Ford cars ran circles around everything else including their own other models. (Can't say anything about trucks because I didn't follow them.)
It really surprised me that the engines, transmissions, exhaust systems, etc coming from the same manufacturer could have such different outcomes. I can understand how the engines of their sporty cars might have had a harder life but did they spec lower quality alternators, water pumps, mufflers, etc for the Camaros, Mustangs etc.
Or cars with bright foglights!Start a thread on Harley’s or trucks in the left lane to see Grampi really go off!
Grandpas 85 Chevy truck with the 4.3L lost a lot of oil straight from the factory. Want to say 1 quart a week easily and he didn't drive much. Next owner went to switch engines and found a line switched. I wish I could of got more info but I find that possible.
This thread brought back memories of repairing engines in the 1970's and early 1980's, that had similar issues. We'd often pull the heads for rework (guide knurling, seals, milling flat and valve job), and nearly always discover that the cylinder bores had a ridge due to excessive wear. Along with a sloppy loose timing chain.
It was actually rare to see an engine that failed somehow, say a cracked cylinder head, or was smoking excessively, and was otherwise perfect inside.
Things really are different today, and we often see well maintained older engines with cylinders that have no ridge and clearly visible cross hatch. The post above notes that "fuel injection" was the best thing that happened to American engines. I do think that is a big factor. Also, emission durability requirements tend to necessitate parts that don't wear out in 20,000 miles.
It was actually rare to see an engine that failed somehow, say a cracked cylinder head, or was smoking excessively, and was otherwise perfect inside.
Things really are different today, and we often see well maintained older engines with cylinders that have no ridge and clearly visible cross hatch. The post above notes that "fuel injection" was the best thing that happened to American engines. I do think that is a big factor. Also, emission durability requirements tend to necessitate parts that don't wear out in 20,000 miles.
Every part bolted on to those X-bodies were brand new and they sold 800,000 of them first year, a recipe for disaster.