 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / November 2004Is older Mustang (late 60s, early 70s) easier to maintain than current cars?
Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier to maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do now? Since they're American, are the parts also cheaper? I just love the look of those older cars but , due to my limited budget, I'll also be using it as my everyday car. I currently have an '89 Volvo (not exactly a 'cool' car) and I've noticed that, since they're older, they seem easier to fix than these new cars that seem to be more complicated. Is this one of those cars that any mechanic can maintain (not someone specialized)? Thanks. > Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier to > maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. Short answer: heck yes! Everything on a vintage mustang or cougar is easier and cheaper to fix than a newer car. (my starter was $30 as an example, and a whole new engine $1200.) Downside: bad gas mileage (figure around 12-13)*, and a likelihood that an unrestored car will nickel and dime you a lot. But there are hosts of kept-up Mustangs out there for a good price * Which you could address by adding fuel injection, a better cam, or a different tranny, like a Lincoln's which one friend of mine put on his '67 Insurance will also be much cheaper on vintage car over new (around $250 a year for my 68 cougar w/9k of collision coverage.) But for 5-8k you can get a really nice 67-70 Mustang. 67-68 are my favorite years personally. And half the stuff on it any shade tree mechanic can work on easily. Mustangs, in fact, are some of the best cars out there to learn basic mechanics on. Get a v8 whatever you do! > Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier > to maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. depends on where you live and if you are averse to actually EDUCATING yourself on modern automotives. Rust belt - forget it! I'm 62, starting working on cars in 1956 and if I had a late sixties Mustang, it would soon have all those "complicated electrics" you're so afraid of. Bcause CARBURETORS SUCK! :) Yea, the computer stuff is a snap. Easy to understand and very logical. It even tells you what's wrong. PLUS you get much better driveability and a LOT better gas mileage. The only disadvantage to working on newer cars is that they are packaged a lot tighter than older cars. This makes major work more complicated and time consuming than in the "good ole days". LJH 95GT (331 stroker, fuel injected, and custom tuned myself) > > Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier > > to maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > :) Yeah, you mean when opening the hood having the ability to actually see the block and major compontents of the engine rather than a mish-mash of wires and hoses? ;-) Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt > Yea, the computer stuff is a snap. Easy to understand and very logical. > It [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lot tighter than older cars. This makes major work more complicated and > time consuming than in the "good ole days". >> Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier >> to maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > :) AMEN to that. While I think tuning a carb is a skill I wish to some day possess, I don't think I ever want to have to use it. The only way I want the words Holley or Edelbrock on top of my engine are if they're the long-runner intake manifolds or heads.. JS > >> Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier > >> to maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > JS I've had my vintage Holley on for two years and haven't had to touch it yet. I don't see what the gripe is about carbs other than the fact they get bad mileage. What adjustments they do need are so insignificant that they don't bother me, and i'm easily bothered otherwise All it takes is a screwdriver to adjust them, after all... >> >> Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) >> >> easier [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > All it takes is a screwdriver to adjust them, after all... What about having to re-jet? Setting up the carb is my biggest problem. I've had cars with carbs on them (that fast-idle stuff has always killed me too) but haven't had too many problems with them. I've never had to set one up from scratch, and I don't think I would know how. I know I could throw a stock SEFI system on a 289-351 based engine and make it work rather quickly. Do the same thing with a carbureted system, and dealing with distributor advance springs and carb jets / a/f setting is just something that would take me a while. For simplicity's sake, though, and for old-school, I can see the sense in the carburetor... especially in the cost arena. But for driveability, gas mileage, setup time, adaptability to engine changes or environmental changes, and lower emissions, I'll take the SEFI. JS > Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier to > maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. I have a 67 Fastback with over 300,000 miles. It has been my daily driver for 27 years. I'm on my third engine, about 20th clutch (went through 10 of them in one year when the local Ford dealer kept putting the wrong parts in), I've had the the floor, quarter panels, fenders replaced. I've had the transmission rebuilt about three times. After dealing with the Ford dealer in the early 80's, I started doing all the mechanical work myself and buying parts that are good for "as long as you own the car". Building up a short block and putting it in or a clutch is no big deal. A starter or water pump is really easy. Changing a heater core is a real pain. It's easy to work on if you have the shop manual, basic tools, and don't live someplace where they salt the roads. It is LOUD, fun to drive, but it can take some time to find the parts. I've just ordered a 2005 so I can have the 67 rebuilt (again). C. W. Robertson Kansas I bought a new Pontiac Firebird GTA in 1991. It cost an average of $1.75 per mile to drive it (Consumer Reports figures). I had nothing but problems from the day I got it. GM was good about fixing it, but it was still a pain. On the other hand, I have had Mustangs (65FB, 74, 72, 66FB, and now a 65 FB) through the years and learned how to fix, tune, etc. And today there are a LOT more aftermarket parts available for the early years. So, I have gone backward in time to buy this 65FB to use as a daily driver. I figure this will last me the rest of my days... unless I win the lottery or Publishers Clearing House... in which case I have a list of vehicles I'd be interested in. So, what it comes down to is what are you willing to do to budget your operating funds. If you're going to farm out all your work, I'd just get a new car with a good warrantee and be done with it. If you want to learn and apply what you learn, there are quite a number of available makes and models you might consider. Look at all the old VW bugs running around. >Are older cars (like the 1968-1970 Mustang, or the older Camaros) easier to >maintain since they didn't have as much electrical stuff as cars do now? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Thanks. Entering into the unknown, V'ger seeks information used to maintain his Vintage Burgundy 1965 Ford Mustang 2+2 w/289 ci 4v oem A Code V8, C4 Trans, 16x8" Vintage 40 wheels, with BF Goodrich gForce T/A 225/50ZR16 tires, American Racing "Mustang" Centercaps, and a whole lot of other stuff; ) Still have that GTA? I've seen 'em on Ebay in the 2k or so range... were there that many problems with them? Were they dogs? Even Mustangs from that era are still worth 4-6k depending on condition and location. JS >I bought a new Pontiac Firebird GTA in 1991. It cost an average of > $1.75 per mile to drive it (Consumer Reports figures). I had nothing [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > T/A 225/50ZR16 tires, American Racing "Mustang" > Centercaps, and a whole lot of other stuff; ) >Still have that GTA? I've seen 'em on Ebay in the 2k or so range... were >there that many problems with them? Were they dogs? Even Mustangs from >that era are still worth 4-6k depending on condition and location. > >JS I would not say it was a dog. I could cruise down the interstae and get around 26mpg. And at 55mph, I could punch it and break the rear wheels loose. To start with, the shocks... lucky if you got 14K out of the originals. The tires... Z rateds and without pushing I went through a set in 10 months if I was lucky. Body flexing was a problem for the fiberglass... paint began to spiderweb from the first. Broke engine mounts just starting it up. Wheels were different sizes (front and rear) so you had to take the rubber off the wheels to rotate 'em. Leather upholstery didn't stand up to the high heat/low humidity of this area... the seat area was perforated and it tore along the dotted lines. Flexing again caused problems with fitment of the hood and deck latches. The list just keeps going. But... it was HOT!!!!!! ; ) Sold it for $2400. Sorry to see it go in some ways but.... Entering into the unknown, V'ger seeks information used to maintain his Vintage Burgundy 1965 Ford Mustang 2+2 w/289 ci 4v oem A Code V8, C4 Trans, 16x8" Vintage 40 wheels, with BF Goodrich gForce T/A 225/50ZR16 tires, American Racing "Mustang" Centercaps, and a whole lot of other stuff; ) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.