I have heard that removing the tailgate from a PU that the gas milage
increases significantly… Any truth to the theory and if so, any first
hand knowledge/numbers?
My PU is a 96 RAM 1500, small v8, 2×4.
Thanks and enjoy the day!
Bob M-J…
Chester, NJ ..<r…@gti.net>..
.
You would think so, but tests have not confirmed any real savings.
–
Al.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In article <4fcs2o$…@gti.gti.net>, r…@gti.net says…
>I have heard that removing the tailgate from a PU that the gas milage
>increases significantly… Any truth to the theory and if so, any first
>hand knowledge/numbers?
>My PU is a 96 RAM 1500, small v8, 2×4.
It sounds sensible, but a more practical solution would be a tonneau
cover, IMO. You’d still be able to secure a load in the bed safely, but
without creating a "wind pocket".
–
Christian Hedemark
wart…@cybrgate.com
Personal Homepage: http://www.voicenet.com/~warthog
NEW! Dodge Ram Homepage: http://www.voicenet.com/~warthog/ramtruck-l
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Don’t know how true this is, but when I purchased
my truck I was told by the dealership that the Ram
was designed for optimum performance from a MPG
standpoint with the tailgate up.
Take it for what it’s worth,
Mark
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In article <4flmsv$…@news.voicenet.com>, wart…@cybrgate.com (Chris Hedemark) says:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <4fcs2o$…@gti.gti.net>, r…@gti.net says…
>>I have heard that removing the tailgate from a PU that the gas milage
>>increases significantly… Any truth to the theory and if so, any first
>>hand knowledge/numbers?
>>My PU is a 96 RAM 1500, small v8, 2×4.
>It sounds sensible, but a more practical solution would be a tonneau
>cover, IMO. You’d still be able to secure a load in the bed safely, but
>without creating a "wind pocket".
>–
>Christian Hedemark
>wart…@cybrgate.com
>Personal Homepage: http://www.voicenet.com/~warthog
>NEW! Dodge Ram Homepage: http://www.voicenet.com/~warthog/ramtruck-l
I installed a Leer fiberglass cover and it has not helped my mileage at all.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In <4fu21j$…@news.zoomnet.net>, bch…@zoomnet.net (bchinn) writes:
;In article <4flmsv$…@news.voicenet.com>, wart…@cybrgate.com (Chris Hedemark) says:
;>
;>In article <4fcs2o$…@gti.gti.net>, r…@gti.net says…
;>>
;>>I have heard that removing the tailgate from a PU that the gas milage
;>>increases significantly… Any truth to the theory and if so, any first
;>>hand knowledge/numbers?
;>>
I don’t know about the mileage, but when I leave the tailgate down on
my ’83 Ranger the ride is very noticeably smoother on the interstate.
-Seems like- I read somewhere that the full size shells don’t help mileage
any, but I don’t remember for sure, or even where I might have read it.
Ed
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In article <4g3274$1…@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>,
co…@ralvm12.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>In <4fu21j$…@news.zoomnet.net>, bch…@zoomnet.net (bchinn) writes:
>;In article <4flmsv$…@news.voicenet.com>, wart…@cybrgate.com (Chris
Hedemark) says:
>;>
>;>In article <4fcs2o$…@gti.gti.net>, r…@gti.net says…
>;>>
>;>>I have heard that removing the tailgate from a PU that the gas milage
>;>>increases significantly… Any truth to the theory and if so, any first
>;>>hand knowledge/numbers?
>;>>
> I don’t know about the mileage, but when I leave the tailgate down on
>my ’83 Ranger the ride is very noticeably smoother on the interstate.
> -Seems like- I read somewhere that the full size shells don’t help mileage
>any, but I don’t remember for sure, or even where I might have read it.
> Ed
Watch out for "fender flop" if you leave the tailgate off. I see the newer
tailgate nets have a solid strap to hold the fenders together now. If you are
going to leave your tailgate down often, you should find a way to replace the
structural impact of the tailgate.
Keith
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
I have had my 94 Dodge 150 SLT since 12/93 and put a tanaue cover on it.
With the cover I get about 3 miles more to the gallon. I just put a Raven
fiberglass cap on and have not noticed any change.
PS. i have a tanaue 8′ black cover for sale if anyone is interested.
$75.00. email me at
Cass…@aol.com
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In <4g3d4v$…@cletus.bright.net>, k…@bright.net (Keith Gardner) writes:
;>
;>Watch out for "fender flop" if you leave the tailgate off. I see the newer
;>tailgate nets have a solid strap to hold the fenders together now. If you are
;>going to leave your tailgate down often, you should find a way to replace the
;>structural impact of the tailgate.
;>
;>Keith
Thanks Keith. Anybody know of anyone who sells those replacement
tailgates made of welded tubing wtih lots of big air gaps? I’ve seen them on
several fullsize pickups used for 5th-wheel trailer towing. I’ve been thinking
of one for the Ranger.
Ed
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
bch…@zoomnet.net (bchinn) wrote:
>In article <4flmsv$…@news.voicenet.com>, wart…@cybrgate.com (Chris Hedemark) says:
>>In article <4fcs2o$…@gti.gti.net>, r…@gti.net says…
>>>I have heard that removing the tailgate from a PU that the gas milage
>>>increases significantly… Any truth to the theory and if so, any first
>>>hand knowledge/numbers?
>>>My PU is a 96 RAM 1500, small v8, 2×4.
>>It sounds sensible, but a more practical solution would be a tonneau
>>cover, IMO. You’d still be able to secure a load in the bed safely, but
>>without creating a "wind pocket".
>>–
>>Christian Hedemark
>>wart…@cybrgate.com
>>Personal Homepage: http://www.voicenet.com/~warthog
>>NEW! Dodge Ram Homepage: http://www.voicenet.com/~warthog/ramtruck-l
>I installed a Leer fiberglass cover and it has not helped my mileage at all.
Ok, here is the real deal, although you may not believe it.
Go check for yourself in a wind tunnel…
I saw a study where this issue was wind tunnel tested.
they used pickup truck with tail up, tail down, and a net
The best mileage with least drag was with tailgate UP.
With it down it creates a huge drag pocket that amplifies the under
body drag and sucks gas mileage. Keep the tailgate up and a pressure
wave is formed in the bed and the over the cab wind rides over that
wave and creates a much smaller drag vortex right behind the gate, and
the underbody wave is sucked up into that creating a tailgate sized
drag vortex. With a net or gate down you get a much more unstable drag
vortex behing the truck. and it forms from the ground up to the top of
the cab !!! gate up is best.
believe it or not.
I laugh at those who drop the gate to save mileage
because they obviously don’t know what-the-f**k.
And nets ?? they make it worse. Nets are only good if you use
them to retain cargo. If you install them to save loot
then save more by not buying one.
Now, a cover with the gate up is good option, it is almost the same
drag as no cover, believe it or not. remember the pressure wave
formed once in motion. it creates a stable surface which keeps
the over the cab flow smooth right to the drop where the gate is.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In <4ga4fq$…@cronkite.xyplex.com> eda…@xyplex.com (Ed Davis)
writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Ok, here is the real deal, although you may not believe it.
>Go check for yourself in a wind tunnel…
>I saw a study where this issue was wind tunnel tested.
>they used pickup truck with tail up, tail down, and a net
>The best mileage with least drag was with tailgate UP.
>With it down it creates a huge drag pocket that amplifies the under
>body drag and sucks gas mileage. Keep the tailgate up and a pressure
>wave is formed in the bed and the over the cab wind rides over that
>wave and creates a much smaller drag vortex right behind the gate, and
>the underbody wave is sucked up into that creating a tailgate sized
>drag vortex. With a net or gate down you get a much more unstable drag
>vortex behing the truck. and it forms from the ground up to the top of
>the cab !!! gate up is best.
>believe it or not.
> I laugh at those who drop the gate to save mileage
>because they obviously don’t know what-the-f**k.
>And nets ?? they make it worse. Nets are only good if you use
>them to retain cargo. If you install them to save loot
>then save more by not buying one.
>Now, a cover with the gate up is good option, it is almost the same
>drag as no cover, believe it or not. remember the pressure wave
>formed once in motion. it creates a stable surface which keeps
>the over the cab flow smooth right to the drop where the gate is.
Answer me one question then, how do you explain those of us that have
_seen_ increased gas milage with the gate down, or especially after I
installed a t-cover? I document every tank of gas I put in my truck,
and the last trip I ran before I had the cover, I ran one leg with the
gate up, one leg with the gate down. The leg with the gate down showed
to be better gas milage.
Dave
’96 Dakota 4×4 Sport V6/Auto
’71 Road Runner 383/4spd
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
bbee…@ix.netcom.com(Dave Goerlich ) wrote:
>In <4ga4fq$…@cronkite.xyplex.com> eda…@xyplex.com (Ed Davis)
>writes:
>>Ok, here is the real deal, although you may not believe it.
>>Go check for yourself in a wind tunnel…
>>I saw a study where this issue was wind tunnel tested.
>>they used pickup truck with tail up, tail down, and a net
>>The best mileage with least drag was with tailgate UP.
>>With it down it creates a huge drag pocket that amplifies the under
>>body drag and sucks gas mileage. Keep the tailgate up and a pressure
>>wave is formed in the bed and the over the cab wind rides over that
>>wave and creates a much smaller drag vortex right behind the gate, and
>>the underbody wave is sucked up into that creating a tailgate sized
>>drag vortex. With a net or gate down you get a much more unstable drag
>>vortex behing the truck. and it forms from the ground up to the top of
>>the cab !!! gate up is best.
>>believe it or not.
>> I laugh at those who drop the gate to save mileage
>>because they obviously don’t know what-the-f**k.
>>And nets ?? they make it worse. Nets are only good if you use
>>them to retain cargo. If you install them to save loot
>>then save more by not buying one.
>>Now, a cover with the gate up is good option, it is almost the same
>>drag as no cover, believe it or not. remember the pressure wave
>>formed once in motion. it creates a stable surface which keeps
>>the over the cab flow smooth right to the drop where the gate is.
>Answer me one question then, how do you explain those of us that have
>_seen_ increased gas milage with the gate down, or especially after I
>installed a t-cover? I document every tank of gas I put in my truck,
>and the last trip I ran before I had the cover, I ran one leg with the
>gate up, one leg with the gate down. The leg with the gate down showed
>to be better gas milage.
>Dave
>’96 Dakota 4×4 Sport V6/Auto
>’71 Road Runner 383/4spd
Well, crosswinds are another factor.
In a perfect situation, like a windtunnel,
it must work fine with gate up.
I mean I saw these results on the toob, but
I am no aerospace engineer, i am just stating
what I saw some engineers do in a windtunnel.
Definitely in this test I saw, the drag was less,
but, again, it wasn’t real world either.
I boldly state mileage was better gate up because
I saw it, dude, but whatthehelldoIknowIamjustsomedudeonthenet.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Another factor is initial vortex from the front of vehicle.
Some windshield designs may initate a diff set of factors
than seen in the test. So, again, whatthehelldoiknowisawitnotdoneit.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In <4gavop$…@cronkite.xyplex.com> eda…@xyplex.com (Ed Davis)
writes:
>Another factor is initial vortex from the front of vehicle.
>Some windshield designs may initate a diff set of factors
>than seen in the test. So, again, whatthehelldoiknowisawitnotdoneit.
That’s a valid point. What works for one specific model of truck may
not be true for all trucks. Do you remember what type of truck they
were testing?
Dave
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
On 19 Feb 1996, Dave Goerlich wrote:
> Answer me one question then, how do you explain those of us that have
> _seen_ increased gas milage with the gate down, or especially after I
> installed a t-cover? I document every tank of gas I put in my truck,
> and the last trip I ran before I had the cover, I ran one leg with the
> gate up, one leg with the gate down. The leg with the gate down showed
> to be better gas milage.
Possible reasons: Different type of driving situation? Was there more
of an altitude change on one leg than the other?
Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ / / /
"Well, there’s more news, but who cares." / /_/ / / /
- Jay Pochapin, WRRK Pittsburgh newsman 12/1/95 _____/ _/ _/ _____/
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In <Pine.LNX.3.91.960222075202.23795D-100…@pc6.ece.cmu.edu> Brad
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Matthew Garcia <gar…@ece.cmu.edu> writes:
>On 19 Feb 1996, Dave Goerlich wrote:
>> Answer me one question then, how do you explain those of us that
have
>> _seen_ increased gas milage with the gate down, or especially after
I
>> installed a t-cover? I document every tank of gas I put in my
truck,
>> and the last trip I ran before I had the cover, I ran one leg with
the
>> gate up, one leg with the gate down. The leg with the gate down
showed
>> to be better gas milage.
>Possible reasons: Different type of driving situation? Was there more
>of an altitude change on one leg than the other?
> Brad M. Garcia ____/ _ _ /
/ /
>"Well, there’s more news, but who cares." / /_/ /
/ /
> – Jay Pochapin, WRRK Pittsburgh newsman 12/1/95 _____/ _/ _/
_____/
Not really, most of the trip was through Ohio (Cleveland -> Cincy).
Weather didn’t change much either, not much wind. (Actually it was a
pretty nice day…)
Dave
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
>Subject: Mercury Cougar…What a Car!
>From: Rick Moore <RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu>
>Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:40:39 GMT
>Message-ID: <4fc2cn$…@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
>I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
>ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
>this piece of crap.
>I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
>fix the damned car.
>Transmission died at 92k
>Electrical Components died at 102k
>Engine died 111k
Its a ten year old car!!!! we didnt hear you bitching about it when it
was 5 years old and paid for….get a grip you think you can keep
driving a car forever?
""my 1964 pontiac has cracks in the sidewalls of the tires due to the fact
that its
older than the hills"" hear me complaining?
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Come on guy!!!!!!
How hard did you drive the car when it was new, and up till now? DID YOU
TAKE CARE OF IT? I think that you should look at those factors bud.
Later,
John
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
synt…@aol.com (Syntor x) writes:
>>ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
>>this piece of crap.
>>I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
>>fix the damned car.
>>Transmission died at 92k
>>Electrical Components died at 102k
>>Engine died 111k
>Its a ten year old car!!!! we didnt hear you bitching about it when it
>was 5 years old and paid for….get a grip you think you can keep
>driving a car forever?
really – I’ve had the same things happen to my car at 30,000 miles and 70,000
miles (1987 Toyota Camry). Now – using today’s standards, what has happened
to you really shouldn’t have, if proper maintenance had been performed, but in
1986, quality was nowhere near where it is now. Ford will be the first to
admit that they were behind in the game in the late 80′s, but their investment
in R&D is paying off and their products are now the equal of any other
manufacturer in most respects (IMHO). On a side note – Consumer Reports
recommended and put the new Cougar on their list of best buys….
>""my 1964 pontiac has cracks in the sidewalls of the tires due to the fact
>that its
>older than the hills"" hear me complaining?
–
******************************************************************************
Bob Webbink bwebb…@cco.caltech.edu
California Institute of Technology bwebb…@ugcs.caltech.edu
*****************************************************************************
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
I think that most of the people in this Newsgroup that love Cougar
product are talking about the 67-70 cougar. I own a 69 cougar and I
love that car. My girlfriend owns a 86 cougar and I agree with you, it
is a piece of shit.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Rick Moore <RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
>ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
>this piece of crap.
>I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
>fix the damned car.
>Transmission died at 92k
>Electrical Components died at 102k
>Engine died 111k
>by comparison
>I just sold my 1985 Honda Accord w/ 185k only problem clutch died 137k
>I/my wife/my children will (I will try to convince every last person I
>know to) never buy, drive, look at another Mercury product again as long
>as I live.
>The most frustrating element is that the sob that determined the material
>specs for the car was in a warm house, sitting on his/her fat a** not
>giving a rats a** that somebody was suffering due to the lack of care
>that they put into building their product.
>My dream: To find the sobs on the design team for that car and hang them
>by their toes in -10 degree for 3 days straight.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Most people do not take care of their cars and then bitch when they do
break. I’m into cars so I take care of mine, My 69 cougar pulled 190K
on the original motor and trans. The only reason it died was because
the fuel pump dies and pumped fuel into the block. This thined out
the oil and droped my oil prssure to 0 on the freeway. I noticed this
too late, the bearings in the motor were fried. So I blame the entire
thing on the fuel pump, the motor ran great till then and it has
almost 200 thousand miles. I replaced the motor and the thing still
looks and runs great.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
mach17…@aol.com (Mach1 73CJ) wrote:
>Come on guy!!!!!!
>How hard did you drive the car when it was new, and up till now? DID YOU
>TAKE CARE OF IT? I think that you should look at those factors bud.
>Later,
>John
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
this piece of crap.
I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
fix the damned car.
Transmission died at 92k
Electrical Components died at 102k
Engine died 111k
by comparison
I just sold my 1985 Honda Accord w/ 185k only problem clutch died 137k
I/my wife/my children will (I will try to convince every last person I
know to) never buy, drive, look at another Mercury product again as long
as I live.
The most frustrating element is that the sob that determined the material
specs for the car was in a warm house, sitting on his/her fat a** not
giving a rats a** that somebody was suffering due to the lack of care
that they put into building their product.
My dream: To find the sobs on the design team for that car and hang them
by their toes in -10 degree for 3 days straight.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
On 8 Feb 1996, Rick Moore wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
> ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
> this piece of crap.
> I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
> fix the damned car.
> Transmission died at 92k
> Electrical Components died at 102k
> Engine died 111k
> by comparison
> I just sold my 1985 Honda Accord w/ 185k only problem clutch died 137k
> I/my wife/my children will (I will try to convince every last person I
> know to) never buy, drive, look at another Mercury product again as long
> as I live.
> The most frustrating element is that the sob that determined the material
> specs for the car was in a warm house, sitting on his/her fat a** not
> giving a rats a** that somebody was suffering due to the lack of care
> that they put into building their product.
> My dream: To find the sobs on the design team for that car and hang them
> by their toes in -10 degree for 3 days straight.
Funny you mention that. I have a 1974 Cougar with 94K original miles on
it that I I bought after selling my Honda. The Honda never had anything
wrong with it. The Cougar has been sitting in the driveway while I
take the bus because something else stopped working on it and I haven’t
got the time to fix it.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
u,rec.autos.tech
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang,rec.autos.makers.saturn,rec.autos.makers.vw.aircooled,rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.suba
ru,rec.autos.tech
References: <4fc2cn$2na@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
Distribution:
Rick Moore (RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
: ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
: this piece of crap.
: I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
: fix the damned car.
: Transmission died at 92k
: Electrical Components died at 102k
: Engine died 111k
: by comparison
: I just sold my 1985 Honda Accord w/ 185k only problem clutch died 137k
: I/my wife/my children will (I will try to convince every last person I
: know to) never buy, drive, look at another Mercury product again as long
: as I live.
: The most frustrating element is that the sob that determined the material
: specs for the car was in a warm house, sitting on his/her fat a** not
: giving a rats a** that somebody was suffering due to the lack of care
: that they put into building their product.
:
: My dream: To find the sobs on the design team for that car and hang them
: by their toes in -10 degree for 3 days straight.
–
My first question to you is this: What does a Mercury Cougar have to do
with a Ford Explorer? Two totally different products with nothing in
common mechanically. I’m sure that there are more appropriate groups to
discuss your Cougar than the Explorer newsgroup. I took a look and
noticed that you also cross-posted to the Chrysler, Saturn, Mustang, VW,
etc. newsgroups. Chances are that the people on those newsgroups are not
driving a 1986 Mercury Cougar anyway. If anything, your post belongs in a
general rec.autos newsgroup. Besides, that’s YOUR 1986 Cougar. It seems
a little ridiculous to judge all of Mercury on the basis of one car.
The other thing is that you fail to mention how well and often you
maintained that Mercury Cougar.
Andrew Rozek
war3…@is.nyu.edu
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Rick, I can see from your post you are really upset over the problems
you’ve had with the Cougar.
You didn’t give specifics other than to say certain major problems occured
with the engine, trans, and electrical. All of these appear to have
occured around 100K. I have no involvement with Ford Motor Company or
their products, don’t even own one, but how long do you think the major
components in a car should last before they are rebuilt? I personally
think it is not unreasonable to have to rebuild or replace stuff at the
100K mark, obviously depending on many varibles of operation. It’s great
that your Honda lasted to 130K or whatever with only a clutch, and I’m
sure some Ford products have too, but maybe your experience with your
Honda has raised your expectations higher than realistic for most cars,
including future Honda models.
I’ve worked in the auto industry all my life, and believe me it isn’t easy
to design anything to last 100K, considering all the variables of climatic
conditions, and driving styles etc. Hope you have better luck with you
next car.
on the ‘Bahn,
Randy
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
> You didn’t give specifics other than to say certain major problems occured
> with the engine, trans, and electrical. All of these appear to have
> occured around 100K, how long do you think the major
> components in a car should last before they are rebuilt? I personally
> think it is not unreasonable to have to rebuild or replace stuff at the
> 100K mark, obviously depending on many varibles of operation.
> on the ‘Bahn,>
> Randy
A-men! My previous car was a mid-eighties GM J-car (Sunbird) I traded it
in with 150,000 miles and still running. Although, it had lots done to
it after about 80,000 miles. Water pump, timing belt, two rotors, a few
sensors, fuel pump (that was a b*tch!), exhaust and a couple CV boots.
It may seem like alot, but this really is all normal wear and tear. Many
folks would be delighted to get that many miles out of their cars
(especially, American makes in the eighties).
You didn’t do too bad.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
synt…@aol.com (Syntor x) wrote:
>>Subject: Mercury Cougar…What a Car!
>>From: Rick Moore <RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu>
>>Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:40:39 GMT
>>Message-ID: <4fc2cn$…@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
>>I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
>>ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
>>this piece of crap.
>>I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
>>fix the damned car.
>>Transmission died at 92k
>>Electrical Components died at 102k
>>Engine died 111k
>Its a ten year old car!!!! we didnt hear you bitching about it when it
>was 5 years old and paid for….get a grip you think you can keep
>driving a car forever?
I dunno… I’m reading this in rec.autos.makers.vw.aircooled, and
while I know it’s generally bad practice to cross post, many people on
the VW list are driving bugs and other VW aircooled cars well over 20
or 30 years old! These cars DO run forever with just owner-provided
inexpensive maitenance. Considering the last new bug came to the US
in 1979, look how many are still on the road, especially in the west
where salt is not used on the highways.
-Joe
_______________________________________________________
There is a road, no simple highway
Between the dawn and the dark of night
And if you go, no one may follow
That path is for your steps alone
Hunter/Garcia
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Douglas Wing <dw…@flowbee.interaccess.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Bernard Johnson wrote:
>>Funny you mention that. I have a 1974 Cougar with 94K original miles on
>>it that I I bought after selling my Honda. The Cougar has been sitting in the driveway while I
>> take the bus because something else stopped working on it and I haven’t
>> got the time to fix it.
>You are using a 22 year old car as your primary vehicle? Get a grip on
>things, even with less than 100k miles, it is still a 22 year old car.
>–
> – Douglas Wing 71341….@compuserve.com
Depends on what 22 yr old car you’re referring to. I had a ’73 240Z with
235k miles that was my daily driver, and it was only out of commission
once in two years.
Ryan
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Bernard Johnson wrote:
> Funny you mention that. I have a 1974 Cougar with 94K original miles on
> it that I I bought after selling my Honda. The Honda never had anything
> wrong with it. The Cougar has been sitting in the driveway while I
> take the bus because something else stopped working on it and I haven’t
> got the time to fix it.
You are using a 22 year old car as your primary vehicle? Get a grip on
things, even with less than 100k miles, it is still a 22 year old car.
–
- Douglas Wing 71341….@compuserve.com
Brought to you by the letters O and S, and the number 2.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
This is the Subaru news group, Which last must longer than 111k and my
1986 GL 4×4 wagon has 159k and I have had no Trans mission problems or
Engine or electrical problems. The only problem so far was the Master
cylinder and hill holder at 155k and the 4×4 drive shaft at 120k.
In article <4fd04e$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, synt…@aol.com says…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>Subject: Mercury Cougar…What a Car!
>>From: Rick Moore <RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu>
>>Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:40:39 GMT
>>Message-ID: <4fc2cn$…@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
>>I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I
have
>>ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
>>this piece of crap.
>>I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
>>fix the damned car.
>>Transmission died at 92k
>>Electrical Components died at 102k
>>Engine died 111k
>Its a ten year old car!!!! we didnt hear you bitching about it when it
>was 5 years old and paid for….get a grip you think you can keep
>driving a car forever?
>""my 1964 pontiac has cracks in the sidewalls of the tires due to the
fact
>that its
>older than the hills"" hear me complaining?
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
In <4fcupo$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, racewa…@aol.com (RACEWARE1) writes:
-snip-
;> but how long do you think the major
;>components in a car should last before they are rebuilt? I personally
;>think it is not unreasonable to have to rebuild or replace stuff at the
;>100K mark,>
Noticeably longer than 100k miles for MAJOR components.
;>I’ve worked in the auto industry all my life, and believe me it isn’t easy
;>to design anything to last 100K,>
;>Randy
Agreed! BUT, they’ve had LOTS of experience by now. :-)
Ed
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Andrew Rozek wrote:
> Rick Moore (RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
> : I own a 1986 Merc Cougar. The car is definitely the worst car that I have
> : ever owned in my life. I have spent half a down payment on a house for
> : this piece of crap.
It’s not the cars fault if you overpaid.
> : I spent 12 hours in -5 degree or less temps this past weekend trying to
> : fix the damned car.
Yes, the weather would have been much warmer if you drove a Honda.
> : Transmission died at 92k
> : Electrical Components died at 102k
> : Engine died 111k
You must of beat the piss out of it. Ever hear of routine Manitenance?
I have an 84 Cougar. It’s a good car. No major probelms. Some things
wore out around 100K but that is NORMAL!
> : by comparison
> : I just sold my 1985 Honda Accord w/ 185k only problem clutch died 137k
My wifes Civic has been extremely reliable. Honda makes a good car. Better
than the Cougar no doubt, but that’s just a matter of degree. I still like
my Cougar even though I have been under it a few more times than the Honda.
I’ve spent more on the Honda this year than on my Cougar! The Honda had a
30K service for $350! My Cougar ate it’s altenator. That cost $60 total!
> : I/my wife/my children will (I will try to convince every last person I
> : know to) never buy, drive, look at another Mercury product again as long
> : as I live.
> :
> : <irrational ranting deleted>
Cry baby.
> My first question to you is this: What does a Mercury Cougar have to do
> with a Ford Explorer? Two totally different products with nothing in
> common mechanically. …
Uh .. excuse me, the mechanicals are almost identical. 3.8L V6, Both EEC-IV
EFI, Both AOD tranny (most likely)…
> … I’m sure that there are more appropriate groups to
> discuss your Cougar than the Explorer newsgroup. I took a look and
> noticed that you also cross-posted to the Chrysler, Saturn, Mustang, VW,
> etc. newsgroups. …
Yes, I can see him stamping his feet and holding his breath too.
> … Chances are that the people on those newsgroups are not
> driving a 1986 Mercury Cougar anyway. …
Yup, I have an 84
> … If anything, your post belongs in a
> general rec.autos newsgroup. Besides, that’s YOUR 1986 Cougar. It seems
> a little ridiculous to judge all of Mercury on the basis of one car.
> The other thing is that you fail to mention how well and often you
> maintained that Mercury Cougar.
The Cougar is not the most reliable car I have owned, but it’s far better
than any post catalytic converter GM I’ve ever owned! And quite a bit
better than the 2 VW’s I owned.
Bob
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Wow! lots of feedback.
O.K., I cross posted Sorry! I did not realize that was such a sin.
As for the car. I can only compare it to others that I have owned. The
mercury has been very well maintained, just as well as the 1986 Nissan
Hardbody pickup that I owned.
However at 105k, the Nissan NEVER had any problems.
Until my wife totaled the poor thing :^)
And my Honda Accord, ditto (- the wife collisions). The car was worry
free.
What worries me is that I see lots of people only expecting a car to last
100k. That’s BS. Who is writing that crap, a bunch of UAW workers?
That’s nothing more than hedging your bets.
"We build a good car…but Its gonna cost you 15 grand, you will be a
slave to a car payment, you will go without for this car you must have in
order to keep a job and support your family. But the things only going
to last you 5-6 years (don’t mind me, I’m going to have a seat in my lazy
boy in my warm house and guzzle another beer after a day at my $20/hr
job. "Hey why is everybody in my company getting laid off?") BS BS BS BS
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS. Suffer! Suffer! Suffer! Suffer!
Crap the government is wasting its time on healthcare, they should focus
on transportation. The auto industry has everbodies a** over a barrell.
Unfortunately I’m finding out how much so even as we speak. What sucks
is that you couldnt find ten people in automaking business that give a
rats a** about the whole thing.
Yes, American auto makers are getting the point now on reliability, but
crap, the cost is out of the fr****** world. Do you ever stop to wonder
how many millions of dollars in debt the people in this country are over
automobiles. What a screwed up crappy system.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang,rec.autos.makers.saturn,rec.autos.makers.vw.aircooled,rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.subar
Subject: Re: Mercury Cougar…What a Car!
References: <4fd4ff$fba@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <311B8E14.7876@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
To: /dev/null
Subject: Re: Mercury Cougar…What a Car!
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang,rec.autos.makers.saturn,rec.autos.makers.vw.aircooled,rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled,rec.autos.marketplace,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.subar
References: <4fd4ff$fba@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <311B8E14.7876@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
In rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer you write:
>Andrew Rozek wrote:
>> Rick Moore (RLMo…@Expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>It’s not the cars fault if you overpaid.
>> … If anything, your post belongs in a
>> general rec.autos newsgroup. Besides, that’s YOUR 1986 Cougar. It seems
>> a little ridiculous to judge all of Mercury on the basis of one car.
>> The other thing is that you fail to mention how well and often you
>> maintained that Mercury Cougar.
>The Cougar is not the most reliable car I have owned, but it’s far better
>than any post catalytic converter GM I’ve ever owned! And quite a bit
>better than the 2 VW’s I owned.
A couple of points: 1) One example cannot prove the quality / lack of for an
entire brand. My 1987 Toyota Camry has been the worst vehicle anyone in my
immediate family has owned (this includes: 1 Corolla, 1 Mazda GLC, 1 Pontiac
Le Mans, 1 Chevy Vega, 1 VW Beetle, 3 F-150s, 4 Crown Victorias, 1 Buick
Le Sabre, 1 Buick Century, 1 Cadillac Fleetwood, and a few random others)…
This may prevent me from ever buying a Toyota again, or it may not. Now –
2) in 1986, American manufacturers did lag behind in quality… Now in 1995,
they did as well, but the gap narrowed… now Asian manufacturers have 88
defects per 100 cars, americans have 110 per 100, and European have 118 per
100 (source: Autoweek, JD Power survey – anyone know where to get the
breakdown by manufacturer? I’d like to see where Ford lies – my impression is
that they should be ahead of Chrysler & GM – listing quality by region is
hardly an effective way to distribute information – ex: Peugot is not nearly as
good of a line as BMW….
3) Now that people see engines that go 100k before their first tune-up, they
expect all cars can do that… this is still new technology, and the engines
still need care. The old engines simply cannot take this – they need routine
maintenance to keep in working order… I’ve seen people push a Ford 4.6L V-8
300k miles (yes, 300k) w/o a tune-up (needs one every 30k – at least this
In other words, baby your car, and one which might
one did), and amazingly the engine still worked. Not well – not even close, but
it worked. Regular maintenance can be expensive, but can save alot of time
and pain later… *always* change your oil at least every 3k miles, if not more
often. And be sure to change it everytime the seasons change, if you don’t get
the 3k miles fast enough. Also – check if additives can be used on your engine.
sometimes this can save alot – my Camry’s fuel injectors were performing badly,
but cleaner saved a ~$600 replacement bill (very poor injector placement). Also
listen to your engine often… Sometimes you can hear small problems which will
cost only a few dollars to fix, which can easily turn into expensive problems
if neglected – my grandfather loves to fine tune his F-150 (note: only perform
such work yourself if you have been trained – he was a B-25 mechanic in WWII and
picked up his skills there), and they last forever – he even has a 1920′s era
farm tractor in perfect working condition, despite the fact that an uncle once
drove it into a pond…
otherwise be a lemon (not that I’m suggesting that any of these are – although
the Camry really was – but that was a 1987 Camry – and 1995 is not 1987, just
like 1996 is not 1986 – something the guy with his Cougar missed out on, and the
models cannot be compared fairly…) will turn out to be a fine car….
–
******************************************************************************
Bob Webbink bwebb…@cco.caltech.edu
California Institute of Technology bwebb…@ugcs.caltech.edu
*****************************************************************************
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
–
RON HILLMAN
r…@smartlink.net
Inherited a 76 Coougar last year gave it to my 16 year old son. Great car
replaced the radiator and changed the fluids. Leaking brake fluid, found
the problem in the right rear brakes. Have yet to fix it. This car runs
perfectly, starts every morning. Have nothing bad to say about furds.
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Douglas Wing wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Bernard Johnson wrote:
> > Funny you mention that. I have a 1974 Cougar with 94K original miles on
> > it that I I bought after selling my Honda. The Honda never had anything
> > wrong with it. The Cougar has been sitting in the driveway while I
> > take the bus because something else stopped working on it and I haven’t
> > got the time to fix it.
> You are using a 22 year old car as your primary vehicle? Get a grip on
> things, even with less than 100k miles, it is still a 22 year old car.
No, actually my primary vehicle is a 1955 Chevy truck. Let’s see, that
one’s a 41 year old car! It has 490,000+
miles on it, is all original except for the radio in the glovebox, has
had one minor overhaul (not a rebuild,
mind you!) And it’s given me NO PROBLEMS except for routine maintainance.
Now just because I stated that it was not running doesn’t mean i’m gonna’
junk it. On the contrary, I’ll get to the problem and modify whatever I
have to to keep that car running as well as my truck is. Seems there were
more problems with the newer cars. Y’know, the more moving parts, bells
and whistles etc. Yeh, there’s something about that old Cougar that I
just like and as soon as I have the time it’s gonna’ be another high
mileage vehicle.
I guess the only problem with the written word is you can’t hear the tone
Heh heh.
of my voice when I’m typing
Never meant to convey the idea that >>I<< was losing my grip!
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers.vw.aircooled,rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled,rec.autos.misc
References: <4fd4ff$fba@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <311B8E14.7876@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <4fhnoi$53m@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: Teleport – Portland’s Public Access (503) 220-1016
Distribution:
Just as _another_ example, look at American made ’84 VW Rabbit Diesels.
They’re tanks. As far as I’ve seen, my ’84 Rabbit Diesel is in perhaps
the poorest shape of any that have been taken care of – the problems are
as follows:
1) Fuel mileage too low. This could be linked to the injectors, which are
getting a bit old.
2) Just had to replace the water pump/Alternator belt. ($15 USD)
3) The timing’s a bit off.
4) Just replaced the air filter. ($6 USD)
5) It’s not a ’94 Mazda RX-7 R2.
6) The paint’s oxidizing, and is now more orange than red. In Oregon,
however, this isn’t uncommon for cars this old – washing them is
performed by the location of the state. I don’t think the car’s ever
been waxed.
Sure, it’s German engineering, but it’s American built, and that in
1983-84 no less.
Paul.
–
Stephen and Ann Blair bl…@teleport.com
(Paul’s married now!) Paul: 1 503 786 4915
The T W O Blairs Home: 1 503 653 5901
Milwaukie, OR A M O P R O B O S
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:12 am
RACEWARE1 wrote:
> <snip>
> I’ve worked in the auto industry all my life, and believe me it isn’t easy
> to design anything to last 100K, considering all the variables of climatic
> conditions, and driving styles etc. Hope you have better luck with you
> next car.
I find that hard to believe. Why is is that my Cousin’s Kenworth has 700K miles
on it and is going strong. His brother has a Benz with 350K miles (gas engine).
My old Buick had 285K miles when it rusted out (engine was fine). My brothers
Ford Mustang has about 180K miles and is going strong. … etc … etc
(not to mention my father-in-laws 58 Farm-all with god knows how many thousands
of hours on the motor)
If you take care of an engine, and don’t beat on it, it should last a great
deal longer than 100K miles. If it doesn’t then it was poorly designed!
Seems to me it’s not all that hard to build an engine to run for more than
100K miles. The big three just don’t want to. That would allow folks to keep
thier cars longer and not have to buy a new car for $20,000 a pop! Built in
obsolecense I think it’s called.
Bob
Comment by admin — January 14, 2010 @ 10:12 am