What caused the most issues at the old cars?

[grillebilly]

I've read here, on the forum, that up the '60's cars had problems with lubrification. Why. And it was the only reason that engines went usually no more then, 100,000 miles?

No. The oil pumps back then were adequate. They typically had problems only with contaminants. Oil pump screens would also get clogged up with gunk and pieces of valve seals. An oil pump that has clean oil being run through it should last indefinitely. Fuel is a major contaminant. The byproducts of a rich mixture cause a lot of combustion deposits, which make their way into the crankcase. Computerized fuel injection virtually eliminated poor fuel mixture.
Oils have also been improved since the 60's. So has technology, metallurgy, and design. Flat tappet cams don't exist anymore. All pushrod engines have roller bearing trunnions. These are just a couple examples of hundreds.

 

[62caddy]

I've read here, on the forum, that up the '60's cars had problems with lubrification. Why. And it was the only reason that engines went usually no more then, 100,000 miles?

Owners were probably not as maintenance conscious then as now. 3,000 mile oil changes has practically been drilled into everybody's head. 1960s engines could/did last over 100k in the right hands.

Lubricant technology has also advanced.

 

[gadget73]

Yeah, with GM there were some real slush designs so you couldn't feel it shift, supposedly. GM also had some four speed units with variable vane high stall ratio torque converters that were quite good at launching the vehicle. The GM turbo 400 took care of the slush and was a very good transmission. Ford's Cruise a Matic and Chysler's Torque Flyt were good at shifting and gave good service.

Ford had some real slushboxes too. I have cars with AODs and I think the C4 shifts terribly.

The AOD in stock form is fairly bad too though. Shift kit and bump the pressure some and it actually feels like it has gears but stock you find yourself in overdrive around 35 with the engine lugging miserably.

 

[Mystic]

Owners were probably not as maintenance conscious then as now. 3,000 mile oil changes has practically been drilled into everybody's head. 1960s engines could/did last over 100k in the right hands.

Lubricant technology has also advanced.

These were the lines I, too, was thinking along. As I recall though I was just a pre-teen sprout), oil changes occurred far less frequently + @ a higher N of miles b/w changes than would evolve coming out of the Eighties and into the Nineties.

 

[lakeeffect]

Materials, including alloys, have improved vastly. Machining has improved and is done to tighter tolerances. The design of the various components in a car are a half-century more evolved. Technology, such as chips and microcontrollers, regulate and improve drivability issues before they become damage. I love my '69 but I'm constantly amazed by what they accomplished with little more than springs and bi-metallic strips back then.

 

[RVT1K]

The older ignition systems with points, condenser, and a single coil were prone to trouble and needed regular maintenance. Wet weather always brought out the worst.

Older engines certainly did not last like modern ones do. I think its a combination of some better materials, some better manufacturing techniques, but most importantly of all better oil. That being said, my 2014 Kia Soul did burn some oil.

One huge difference is how much better the body will last on a modern car. If you lived in the northeast, where the roads are covered with rock salt in the winter, seeing cars with totally rotted out quarter panels and fenders was a regular thing.
This is another example of better materials and construction techniques. One thing I always remembered was how the rear quarters were designed so that there was a big gap between the outer and inner fenders so that rock salt would collect, stay damp, and create all the corrosion it could.

 

[Telecolor 3007]

Better materials. Like steel made in electric arc furnaces?
Better tolerances? Computer aid, laser?
Yeah, some people do not proprely maintain theyr vehicles.

 

[Telecolor 3007]

No. The oil pumps back then were adequate. They typically had problems only with contaminants. Oil pump screens would also get clogged up with gunk and pieces of valve seals. An oil pump that has clean oil being run through it should last indefinitely. Fuel is a major contaminant. The byproducts of a rich mixture cause a lot of combustion deposits, which make their way into the crankcase. Computerized fuel injection virtually eliminated poor fuel mixture.
Oils have also been improved since the 60's. So has technology, metallurgy, and design. Flat tappet cams don't exist anymore. All pushrod engines have roller bearing trunnions. These are just a couple examples of hundreds.

Could this issue be resolved in older cars?

 

[Brian1970]

Could this issue be resolved in older cars?

Do you mean could they have resolved those issues then or could you do it now on an older car? They attempted to fix all these things of course. My first car had an attempt at fixing the fuel mixture issues. It was an electronically controlled carb that still wasn't very good and in some ways worse. It would make the engine run too lean sometimes and cause knocking which could, and did in my case, cause damage to the engine. So along with fuel injection, modern cars also have knock sensors to prevent running too lean. If you want to add fuel injection to an older car, you can. There are kits out there to do it.

 

[Quadman2]

There were two types of issues: internal and external.

INTERNAL

As already pointed out, lubrication with the constant need of grease/frequent oil changes that the many would forget about.

Leaking due to poor composition of gasket material.

Cup distribution of oil to motor, esp in hilly terrains.

Lack of streamlining, added to high fuel consumption.

Added weight due to attention to style more than function.

Tolerances in some aspects of motor too large.

Rigid body, causing damage to the human body, lacking the soft "crush factor".

Hard metal dashes that would eviscerate the body on severe impact.

Gasoline tank placement in the wrong area, and design.

Lots of blind spots in the rear.

Lacking of seat belts to prevent ejection from a vehicle.

Poor lighting due to halogen construction.

Ineffective brake drum design.

Design of motor.

2 ply tires/no metal.

Etc.

EXTERNAL

Bye product of gases.

Increased need for oil changes.

Poor tire life, with increased need to replace.

Composition of gasoline with lead content

etc.


Q

 

[grillebilly]

Could this issue be resolved in older cars?

With modern technology. yes.

 

[Telecolor 3007]

But can it be done in older cars?

 

[spicer]

Ford had some real slushboxes too. I have cars with AODs and I think the C4 shifts terribly.

The AOD in stock form is fairly bad too though. Shift kit and bump the pressure some and it actually feels like it has gears but stock you find yourself in overdrive around 35 with the engine lugging miserably.

My baseline is 1967, the GM turbo 400, the Ford C6 and the Chrysler TorqueFlite as seen in Charger, full sized cars. Overdrives and other, later transmissions were not the same and people complained, performance and durability. I remember the turbo 400 chosen for military applications, noting their durability. A lot changed going into the emissions years, some good, some not so good.

 

[gadget73]

The heavier duty transmissions generally seemed to shift better than the light duty.

As for oils and old engines, I sold a friend my quarter million mile 302 for one of his cars. 1991, from new it had 3k oil changes and EFI. Changed to synthetic oil around 180k. He pulled the bearings and they weren't bad. Crosshatch still visible on the cylinders. The 302 was introduced in 1968, but very little different from the 260 and 289 that date to the late 50s. Better oil, good maintenance, and proper fuel mix go a long way. My current Mark 7 has 240k and I fully expect I'd have the same results if I opened it. It has similar maintenance records.

Original engine from the Town car was toast at 125k. No oil pressure. Same engine but extensive leaks and very poor maintenance.

 

[BmWr75]

I started driving in the mid-70s. Starters and radiator thermostats are two things I remember repairing/replacing most often.

 

[gadget73]

exhaust on a lot of V8 ran right next to the starter so they got pretty toasty. Even worse with headers. Nothing like a hot rod that won't start because the starter got heat soaked. Newer starters with the permanent magnets and the gear reducer helped a ton with that. Also smaller so more clearance.

 

[Nimbley]

From what I've seen, the main problem with vehicles hasn't changed since their invention. It's lack of maintenance by the owner. I think that technology has made them more reliable in general. Lubricants are better, parts can be mass produced at higher tolerances, fuel is more consistent, etc. Problem is, just as an example, how many people actually change their fuel filter every year like recommended? Do you flush your AT every 75,000 miles? Have strange noises checked before they get worse? How long has that check engine light been on? As a professional who's worked in the industry since the late 80's, I see vehicles that are seriously neglected. Then you have the owner has a fit when it's time for brakes, even though they've put 2000 miles on the car since they went metal to metal.

 

[Telecolor 3007]

Lack of maintance is bad, but some old vehicles that had a shorter life because of some good maintinance because of some issues. Of course, maintance is good for the life of the vehicle.

 

[GordonW]

For cars from the 1960s and early 1970s- points ignition systems, dirt in carburetors, and early emission system failures.

And for some makes- automatic transmission failures. Manual gearboxes tended to mostly last forever, but some automatics of that era could be trouble.

Metallurgy was a real issue, too. Piston ring technology really advanced in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Things like moly-coated piston rings are one of the reasons why cars stopped burning oil at less than 100K miles, on a regular basis. Also, better casting technology allowed aluminum parts to be FAR more durable, than earlier generations.

Rust was also more of an issue, than with the 1980s and newer cars. Rust prevention technology got a LOT better in the 1980s and beyond. We used to- even in the deep South- have cars, up to the mid-1970s, that rusted out badly, before they were 15 years old- holes in fenders, rotted rocker panels, holes in floorboard, and such. Now, it's EXTRAORDINARILY rare to see a car newer than 1985, with significant rust, unless it was either wrecked and fixed badly, driven frequently on a beach, pieced back together from a flooded car, or brought down from a northern state.

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[tom3]

Where I live, RUST. And newer vehicles suffer from it too.