If Henry Ford was ahead of his time....

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2010: If Henry Ford was ahead of his time....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William L. Vanderburg on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 07:30 pm:

why did he design a car where you have to completely disassemble a head light just to replace the bulb?!?!?!?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 07:42 pm:

Easy

Drive the Model T on Dearborn Michigan roads, and that headlamp rim and lens will fall off....replacment of the bulb simplified. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By A.J. "Art" Bell on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 07:44 pm:

Hmmm I'd say that was ahead of his time.
Try to change #4 spark plug on a 1997 5.4 F150!
The dealer takes 2 hours, it took me nearly 4 hours
to change all 8 plugs.

Regards
Art


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Robert Conner - Sanford, NC on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 07:49 pm:

You think that's bad, try changing the head light a on a new Dodge Charger, you have to take the whole front clip off.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 09:23 pm:

I learned from a Buick man in 1958: "You have to drop the rearend on a Ford to even lift the radiator cap."

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kenneth W DeLong on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 09:35 pm:

What's a headlite bulb?? Headlites are gass! Bud.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kenny Edmondson, Indy on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 10:58 pm:

William, is there a problem with that??? Have you changed a "bulb" on anything newer that a 1990's vehicle?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William L. Vanderburg on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 08:55 am:

As a matter of fact, Kenny, I have. My comment was meant to be satirical.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kenny Edmondson, Indy on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 09:38 am:

William, my comment was meant to be the same. It's easier to take a T headlight lense off to change a bulb than some of the things you have to do on the modern cars today.

Bud, after reading your comment a few times I finally got it. Good one.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Dimock, Newfields NH on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 10:09 am:

Bill Van -- After struggling with a bulb replacement - almost got a hernia twisting the rim - I understood what you meant and found it very funny.

Dan's comment and picture made me laugh and had me thinking about finding a bumpy NH road until I began to question if I put the rim back on securely.

Good stuff -- funny and made us think!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Dimock, Newfields NH on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 10:12 am:

I didn't do an update when I added this, so it got lost.

You gaslight guys are in a world of your own!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By justin h on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 02:02 pm:

art bell, doesnt it seem to you like they purposely make modern vehicles that much more difficult to work on yourself so that you have to pay one of their shops to do the most common of basic maintenance?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Mullin on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 03:06 pm:

Justin,

It seems that way, but I've found from experience that you should not ascribe an action to intentional malice when it can be explained by normal stupidity.

I am a highway engineer by training and profession. Over the 40 years and more of my career I've found the new batch of engineers (and managers) continually need to re-learn the old lessons about roadside safety that us older engineers thought were learned already. No one in practice now even remembers the Blatnik Committee Report from the late 1960s on highway safety, let alone the design flaws it highlighted and the better way the roadside should have been designed. That report caused a lot of design changes to make the roadway more forgiving to driver error or misadventure.

You would think with so many new mistakes to make they wouldn't want to repeat old ones!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William L. Vanderburg on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 03:39 pm:

I'll go to the opposite end of the spectrum ans say that Chrylser is even further ahead than Ford, because on my 2005 PTC I had to have a water pump replaced, at the cost of $1,000.00 The engine cradle had to be lowered to remove it. (It's at the lower side of the engine block).


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William L. Vanderburg on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 03:40 pm:

That should be "and", not ans.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kenny Edmondson, Indy on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 03:51 pm:

I don't recall ease of maintenance being one of Henrys main ideas. I thought the object was to make them as cheap as possible so everyone could afford one.

I've worked in the Truck industry for 35 years and still gripe about the way vehicles are engineered. Some are getting better. Most things are not designed to work on. The design is more for cost and ease of assembly when built.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By justin h on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 03:52 pm:

mullin, im certainly no fan of new cars.. i learned cars on fuel ejected, computer controlled systems and to be completely honest, the more i learned about them the more i looked at these systems and just asked myself "why?".

sure, older cars without these computer systems, and carburators may have been just a little less efficient, but at the cost of more expensive repairs, more parts to fail (like all those little sensors) and so forth, is new really better when you have to rely on so many more parts and components to function together correctly?

but to keep on topic, i wouldnt say ford was or wasnt ahead of his time based on having to disassemble headlights, ive worked on some newer cars that were significantly more difficult to change headlights, the more i learn about henry fords earlier designs like Ts and As, the more i like them for being incredibly straightforward in reguards to modern vehicles


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Wayne Sheldon, Grass Valley, CA on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 09:27 pm:

An old truth.
"Engineers learn more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing.
Architects learn less and less about more and more until they know absolutely nothing about everything."

My addition.
"Technicians must learn everything about everything so that they may fix the mistakes of architects and engineers."

I have always said both architects and engineers should be required by law to work at least five years in the field of their chosen profession before rising up to design.
After years in the field, the stories I could tell. Most of them boring. But the continual resurgence of old mistakes is almost unbelievable. One of the largest producers of commercial cable TV equipment in the world was destroyed by a well known non compatible materials effect.
Okay, to keep this T related, The reason I am broke and can't afford to buy anything T right now is in part because I was too outspoken about what was right or wrong in the industry.
Drive safe, W2


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck - Shreveport, LA on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 09:36 pm:

I'm sure glad that I'm no longer an engineer. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Robert Conner - Sanford, NC on Friday, December 03, 2010 - 11:47 pm:

At one point, the engineers were the ones that designed the entire car. It was sort of a form follows function mentality. What changed was the desire to make cars more flashy, like what Harley Earl was doing with custom cars. When GM put him in charge of the newly formed art and color department, it changed the way cars were made. Now it was style over function.

William, I know your pain. There was a manufacturer, can't remember which one now, that made an engine where the water pump was driven off the timing belt. Usually the customer opted to sell the car rather than pay the bill to replace the pump.

There are also several engines where the starter is located under the intake manifold.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By justin h on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 03:55 am:

problem i see with new cars.. they all have "gimmicks" about them that we dont need, and i certainly dont want... why add the technology, and the components to fail to build a car that can do so many senseless things at the cost of reliability, and efficiency, and the need to have specialists do the simplest of tasks?...

personally, and im sure many of you are with me, but ill roll up my windows by myself, parallel park myself, and replace the rear view camera with a rear view mirror.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By justin h on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 04:57 am:

i wonder what happened to henry fords idea with a model T... one chassis means very inexpensive to mass produce, various body styles that can be selected for the same chassis to go from a pickup truck, to a coupe, to a sedan and so on.. should a modern car actually do this too, and cut out the "gimmicks" and unneccessary accessories, a manufacturer could create a series of very inexpensive, useful automobiles that anyone could afford new... would sell like hot cakes with this crumby economy


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Robert Conner - Sanford, NC on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 06:14 am:

They still have chassis parts that will interchange, but the days of body bolted to frame are gone. The new unibody design is a lot safer, but you can only make one body style for that run because the body make the whole car. The only part that is separate is the front end, and they can be used on multiple models.

The thing that always struck me as odd is they are making several different versions of the exact same car, the only difference would be an extra button here or maybe different seat material. There's like five versions of the Honda I drive with the same motor and body, my question is why?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck - Shreveport, LA on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 08:05 am:

Robert,

Since you drive a Honda, I guess you might be surprised to know that Honda water pumps are driven by the timing belt.

Many manufacturers have gone this route and I don't see much wrong with it other than it has a timing belt that must be replaced every 90,000 miles or so.

If your Honda has lots of miles on its belt, you'd best replace it unless you want to deal with bent exhaust valves. Replace the cam seal at the same time - they are prone to leak and the last thing you want is oil on your new timing belt. Replace the water pump also unless you are in love with going back in there again.

Balance shaft drive belt too, if it's a 4-cylinder Accord with a balance shaft.

Seth


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Dimock, Newfields NH on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 11:10 am:

Robert

The 2.8 Audi motor is the same way - Water pump driven off the timing belt.
It only cost about $2,000 to do the job correctly.
If you don't do it every 60-80,000 miles the cost to fix goes to $6,000 plus.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Blewster on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 11:22 am:

Try changing the headlight bulbs - which lasted about 6 months max - on a New Beetle without breaking some of the plastic parts. I had to undergo T therapy every time I finished that chore!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 11:40 am:

The definition of an airplane is a thousand compromises flying in close formation.

Compromises abound in cars, too. Our Mercury Monterey, a tarted up Ford Freestar, has the same basic drivetrain as the 1986 Taurus. The waterpump is not easy to change, but at least it's driven off the single belt, and not a timing belt. After seeing powdery rust on the hub of the waterpump pulley, indicating slipping, I figured it was a goner. Then I noted it drives off the back side of the belt, which has little friction. So, I apply belt dressing now and again.

I really like all the toys on this Premier version. I had to fix a few of the convenience items when I got it with 80K miles, but it has been trouble-free since. It was $37K new; I paid $7K.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck - Shreveport, LA on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 11:40 am:

Every Audi engine with overhead camshafts that I know of has a belt camshaft drive and timing belt driven wasserpompe.

This goes back to the original Audi Fox of the early 70s and includes every US model Volkswagen since the 1975 model year except for the original Beetle built for us until the 1979 model year.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 11:53 am:

The Ford Escort, known as the World Car for its record setting production, was mostly an OHC four, and with the timing belt driving only the cam. Driving a waterpump with that same belt adds load and subtracts from reliability.

In fact, I would expect the alternating load from a camshaft to shorten the life of the waterpump.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck - Shreveport, LA on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 12:43 pm:

Well, Ralph, perhaps your expectations are wrong. The original water pump on my 1990 Mazda B2200 pickup was doing fine at 195,000 miles when I sold the truck as was the original water pump on my 1986 (?) B2000 pickup at 157,000 miles when I sold it.

Belt technology has undoubtedly improved. The timing belts on OHC Pintos, Vegas, and Fiat 128s would often break before 40,000 miles.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dare on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 03:41 pm:

A 66 T'bird with calif air pump and rails, almost impossible to get the back plugs out, easy- remove and discard all of the pollution sh&t.
Now thats easier.

David Dare


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By justin h on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 04:23 pm:

ill agree unibody is cheaper, i dont think id ever go as far as to say its safer... i would sacrafise unibody construction and all the airbags in the world for something with a strong, solid frame and steel bumpers


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By justin h on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 04:24 pm:

sorry, sacrifice, ive been awake for a long time


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password:

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration