What caused the decay of the U.S. auto manufactureres

[H2oman7.62mm]

I bought a brand new '96 Crown Vic that had serious transmission problems that they could not solve, so I traded it in on a new Acura Integra within a year. That '96 was my last domestic vehicle, so almost 30 years of nothing but Japanese vehicles made here and there.

 

[ernieb1536]

That "thing" called the Mach-E has not been accepted by the Mustang community. We see it as Ford's pathetic attempt to grift off of the Mustang's heritage in a desperate effort to sell an EV that few people wanted.

They tried to pass off the ford probe as a front wheel drive mustang ! Did not go well so they hurriedly came up with a rear wheel drive mustang and called the what would have been mustang the ford probe ! Looks like they didn’t learn from their past mistakes !

 

[Telecolor 3007]

Ha, there is one abandoned "Ford" Probe in Bucharest.
There was also an "Cadillac" (2 door) near it, but it was moved before I could take a look at it.

 

[H2oman7.62mm]

Keep an eye out for GM A-body intermediate-sized cars including the Chevrolet Chevelle, Pontiac Tempest, Oldsmobile Cutlass, and Buick Skylark that were made from 1964 to 1981 (1969 through 1972 is the sweet spot)

 

[ernieb1536]

Keep an eye out for GM A-body intermediate-sized cars including the Chevrolet Chevelle, Pontiac Tempest, Oldsmobile Cutlass, and Buick Skylark that were made from 1964 to 1981 (1969 through 1972 is the sweet spot)

You forgot Montecarlo !

 

[ernieb1536]

Ford also played around with replacing the Mustang with the Probe. I was one of many who made our feelings known to Ford that we would never buy a front wheel drive Mustang. You're right, the Mustang IIs were basically rebadged Pintos. Definitely not a bright spot in Mustang history.

My love affair with the Mustang started when my brother returned from Vietnam and factory ordered a fastback 1967 S code that came with a 390ci engine and a four speed manual. It was basically the same one that Steve McQueen drove in the movie Bullitt. It is the only vehicle he regretted selling. I bought my first Mustang in 1989 four years after I graduated from college. I factory ordered it with every option and chose the LX 5.0L because I didn't like the body panels they put on the GTs. It is still in the garage today but with a lot of modifications done to it.

It originally was based on the ford falcon

 

[OldJBL]

It originally was based on the ford falcon

Up until 2015, the Mustang either shared or was a derivative of another chassis. In 2015 the S550 chassis was unique to the Mustang and still is today with the S650 chassis.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Yup, add direct injection and PCV system to the list. PCV by itself is not terrible although an old timey catch can is better. DI, unlike port injection does not clean ports and valve tops so PCV muck accumulates which will cause performance issues in as little as 60k miles. Another awful tech is welt oil pump belt which stretch and when broken destroys the engine. It is also expensive maintenance item. I don't want any of this crap and prefer 2000's cars which have no eco-gizmos. My current vehicle is a 2003 4Runner with the bullet proof 1GR-FE V6. My previous vehicle was 2008 Crown Vic with equally bullet proof 2V Modular V8. If I were to pick a newer car, it would be a Toyota or Lexus with normally aspirated engine, DI and port fuel injected, and no CVT.

The comments about direct injection just reinforced my realization of how little percent I know of everything that's under the hood today. You made me run to google what's in the 2024 Coyote V8 in my Mustang - turns out it has both direct and port injection. I'm sure there must be lots to discuss about advantages/disadvantages of just this one design aspect.

 

[mrehorst]

What about all the Toyota tundra owners who paid big bucks for a truck and now can’t give it away knowing their motor could blow any minute ! Or Honda crv owners who have to keep having huge amounts of gas dilute their oil causing their new cars to drink oil , or Nissan owners who are just screwed ! The truth is while the Japanese can build great cars they don’t always ! No brand or company is a guarantee on quality !

Those are made in the US, aren't they?

One reason I chose a Prius is because Toyota makes them in Japan.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Some very important and spot-on responses in this thread. The US were the envy of the world before they were tasked with reducing emissions. Japan pretty much reversed engineered the US and the UK drivelines early on to get started.
You can call it greed, I think capitalism was the downfall. Capitalism is nothing more than giving the people what they want, while making the most profit. The US was lazy, thinking people would buy their offerings without being better. The risk they took was a bad one. Fatal, even. We built second tier vehicles in a time when building anything decent was a gigantic challenge. The competition worked harder and caught the US napping. Consumers are the ultimate report card, buyers are more savvy than engineers or bean-counters.
It took a couple decades for the US to catch up. By then there were too many "loyal" buyers of foreign makes. Which was the reverse of 1970.

Yep, when the oil crisis and first pollution standards were introduced, the only thing U.S. makers were prepared to do was detune, detune, detune carbureted engines with mechanical spark management. Meanwhile, business wise, U.S. makers were coasting on their market share with no way to go but down. The Japanese on the other hand were thought of as exporters of tin toys and general junk, but were listening to Deming and the only way to go was up. They stuck to their hard but honest path to change the perception of the buying public, which Detroit was too stupid to do.

Technologically, performance of engines changed greatly for the better with fuel injection and electronic control that continuously tunes for existing conditions. My 66 Mustang with a small 8 got about 1 HP per cubic inch, IIRC, and of course was a pollutor under all but ideal conditions. My 2013 Mustang V6 got 50% more horses per C.I. while meeting smog limits under all conditions, summer or winter, and with better mileage. And there was no comparison in winter starting. Regular maintenance was also greatly reduced, although that couldn't be claimed as a major expense of ownership. Of course, the downside is all the added complication and cost if something does fail, not to mention the initial cost of vehicles today.

 

[old_tv_nut]

The big problem with American cars made within the last 8 years is the amount of Chinese and Mexican manufactured parts that they contain. I see it every day in the police fleet that my facility maintains. Except for the control arm bushings and valve seal issues in the 95 and 96 Crown Vics they were the best police cars that were ever in our fleet right up until they quit building them. The newer Explorers are a joke and the Durangos are so bad we won't even consider buying them. The best PPVs right now are the current gen Tahoes and the 10 speed transmission in those can be a weak spot too.

Is that 10 speed the one that's shared with Ford? According to comments I've seen online (regarding Mustangs) Ford had problems early on but seems to have mostly ironed them out.

 

[old_tv_nut]

What about all the Toyota tundra owners who paid big bucks for a truck and now can’t give it away knowing their motor could blow any minute ! Or Honda crv owners who have to keep having huge amounts of gas dilute their oil causing their new cars to drink oil , or Nissan owners who are just screwed ! The truth is while the Japanese can build great cars they don’t always ! No brand or company is a guarantee on quality !

There's a difference between "guaranteed," which nobody is claiming, and "very likely better," which is most people's estimate of the top Japanese makers.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Right! Having a high school friend that got a 69 fastback in the early 70s with the semi high performance motor (225 hp I think) to replace his MG-A, we grew up with real Mustangs. But Ford has always played games with the mustang branding ... that sad little 4 cyl Mustang II (pinto based - 1973-78) was a shameful example. The ones with the 2.8l V6 were reasonable, while the 302 V8 versions were fun but excessive But they sold a ton of the Mustang IIs, America liked them.

I thought my 300 HP V6 was quite reasonable. I thought of it as an engineer's car - plenty of power and still got 30 mpg on a good day of highway driving.

 

[old_tv_nut]

I have fond memories of riding around in my brother's Mustang and listening to the Beach Boys from an eight track. His '67 was a beautiful car.

Did he ask you to sit in the back to help keep the rear wheels under it? [That seemed to be a problem in my '66.]

 

[hjames]

Did he ask you to sit in the back to help keep the rear wheels under it? [That seemed to be a problem in my '66.]

Dads 67 Camaro was like that -307 v8 with a Powerglide 2sp (POS) Automatic Trans.
No weight in the back and it would break loose without any real provocation!
Then again my c10 pickup with a hotted up small block was like that too, esp in winter!

 

[ernieb1536]

Up until 2015, the Mustang either shared or was a derivative of another chassis. In 2015 the S550 chassis was unique to the Mustang and still is today with the S650 chassis.

Yes the new mustangs and Camaros have come along way from their humble roots ! They’ve both evolved into real sports cars !

 

[OldJBL]

The comments about direct injection just reinforced my realization of how little percent I know of everything that's under the hood today. You made me run to google what's in the 2024 Coyote V8 in my Mustang - turns out it has both direct and port injection. I'm sure there must be lots to discuss about advantages/disadvantages of just this one design aspect.

Direct injection came about due to CAFE regulations. It took 5-7 years to figure out that only injecting directly into the combustion chamber allowed carbon to build up on the intake valves to the point the engine wouldn't run properly. They then added the old style port injectors back to clean the carbon off the intake valves. The port injectors only spray periodically and just enough to keep the valves clean. Since the direct injectors fire just before the piston reaches top dead center of the compression stroke, it operates between 1,500 to 3,000 psi depending on the compression ratio of the engine. Port injectors operate around 45-50 psi. As always with the mandated, newer tech the repair costs associated with direct injection is much higher than for the older port injection.

 

[OldJBL]

Did he ask you to sit in the back to help keep the rear wheels under it? [That seemed to be a problem in my '66.]

I weighed so little it wouldn't matter. I do remember going to the car wash with him and one of his buddies left an unsmoked cigarette on the floor in the back. I jokingly said I should smoke it and he said "Go ahead." I was around 7-8 years old at the time. He lit it and I took a drag from it and thought I was going to die. He asked me if I liked it and I said it was terrible. He said "Good, don't ever smoke again."

 

[SoCal Sam]

The comments about direct injection just reinforced my realization of how little percent I know of everything that's under the hood today. You made me run to google what's in the 2024 Coyote V8 in my Mustang - turns out it has both direct and port injection. I'm sure there must be lots to discuss about advantages/disadvantages of just this one design aspect.

All US emissions cars have positive crankcase ventilation valves which vent crank gases to the intake manifold. The gas is mostly engine oil vapor which is heavy and can coat exposed surfaces such as intake runners and more critically, valve tops. In DI only engines, these deposits build up such that the intake runners and valve tops become caked and clogged leading to all sorts of performance issues. This requires cleaning in as little as 60,000 miles and is relatively expensive. Port injection sprays fuel in the intake runners and valve tops thus preventing PCV buildup. Having BOTH DI and port injection is the best of both worlds. You get the power and efficiency of DI plus the cleaning and low maintenance of port injection.

 

[SoCal Sam]

Direct injection came about due to CAFE regulations. It took 5-7 years to figure out that only injecting directly into the combustion chamber allowed carbon to build up on the intake valves to the point the engine wouldn't run properly. They then added the old style port injectors back to clean the carbon off the intake valves. The port injectors only spray periodically and just enough to keep the valves clean. Since the direct injectors fire just before the piston reaches top dead center of the compression stroke, it operates between 1,500 to 3,000 psi depending on the compression ratio of the engine. Port injectors operate around 45-50 psi. As always with the mandated, newer tech the repair costs associated with direct injection is much higher than for the older port injection.

This. DI is not all bad. DI allows for higher compression than is possible with port only which increases power and reduces emissions.