1st February 2010, 20:42
| #1 |
| BHPian Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: New Delhi
Posts: 453
Thanked: 254 Times
| |
|
| |
|
1st February 2010, 20:58
| #2 |
| Senior - BHPian  | |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 21:22
| #3 |
| BHPian Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: New Delhi
Posts: 453
Thanked: 254 Times
| |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 21:37
| #4 |
| Distinguished - BHPian   | |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 21:40
| #5 | |
| Senior - BHPian  | Quote:
 | |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 22:06
| #6 |
| BHPian  | |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 22:14
| #7 |
 | |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 22:27
| #8 | |
| BHPian Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: New Delhi
Posts: 453
Thanked: 254 Times
| Quote:
| |
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 23:03
| #9 | |||
| Senior - BHPian  Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Singapore, Mumbai, Nagpur
Posts: 2,166
Thanked: 223 Times
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The US Ford Pinto's contemporary in Europe was the Cortina-based Ford Capri Mark 1. From 1970-1978, the Capri was exported to USA and called the Mercury Capri. So Capri and Pinto were actually sold contemporary to each other in the same US market. Engines Until 1971 the European/British Ford Capri had Ford's Kent 4-cylinder engines. However 1972 onwards, Capris used the 2.0 litre EAO four 4-cylinder OHC engine. This engine was the only commonality between the European Ford Capri and the American Ford Pinto. The same Ford four cylinder OHC engine was also produced at Lima, Ohio (called the Lima-four) and found in the American Pinto and 4-cyl. Mustangs, and European Capri and Taunus-Cortina. Ford called it the T-88 series engine. Introduced in 1970, it used nuts and bolts in SI unit sizes rather than the British ones. So one needed a separate set of tools, from the ones for standard American cars. It was Ford's first engine to have the rubber belt-driven overhead camshaft. It came in four sizes, 1.6 litre, 1.8 litre, 2.0 litre and 2.3 litre -- the latter two being the more popular avatars. It came in normally aspirated as well as turbosupercharged incarnations. In the mid-eighties, I have owned two cars in my life with the Lima four engine, both with Weber carburettors. A 1977 Ford Taunus 2.0 Ghia with a 2.0 litre EAO engine and a 1979 Ford (Fox-platform) Mustang fastback with a 2.3 litre Lima four.  The Lima four had a noisy camshaft that was fraught with the propensity to flatten its cams if driven hard on old oil. I changed the camshaft on my Mustang, in Everett, Washington. Transparent Model Engine Around 1985 to 1995, Revell made a transparent plastic scale model of the Lima-four 2.3 liter 4 cylinder turbo engine in 1/3rd scale. This had a moving crankshaft, connecting rods, pistons, OHC valve train and timing belt. It also had a see-through turbo charger with manually moving impellers. The working ignition system had miniature bulbs that would light to indicate firing spark plugs. The model engine came completed with alternator, air pump and fan. Ram | |||
|
|
|
1st February 2010, 23:10
| #10 |
| BHPian  | |
|
|
|
2nd February 2010, 00:23
| #11 |
| Senior - BHPian  Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Mumbai
Posts: 4,036
Thanked: 3,311 Times
| Worst cars is a very general statement. There must be a reason why the car is in such a list. I do not believe that it has something to do with attitude and service of the manufacturer/dealer/service station. It must be more asthetics and technical. Or downright dangerous like the Pinto which often caught fire. Fiat/Premier, Amby and Gazel were the worst cars in India because they were extreemly dated, nothing else was available and the dealer + manufacturer had a very bad attitude. One should go through the list, it should not be dismissed as just nonsense, because many of the cars on that list were basically bad in some way or the other. Every car on that list can be discused individually, but that would take pages. So I shall comment on a few already commented on. Even the Edsel was bad, bad in timing as it appeared a few years too late. Technically she was relatively sound, styling was a matter of taste, but so were most of the later 1950's cars. If I could lay my hands on an Edsel convertible, I would. The Amphibian may have been practical in the sense that it could float, but asthetics?  We may have got used to the looks over the years, but it looks as bad as those flying cars one sees once in a while with wings and tail. Those 2 propellers sticking out look bad. And even as a boat the styling is not asthetic. Many cars on the list are indeed collectible, but does that make them any better? Just go and drive a Ford Model T. You require three hands and only one leg, not made for normal humans. At the other end is the futuristic Lagonda, a car well maintained is worth a fraction of what it cost when new. Only now prices are creeping up. Also, being named in a list of worst cars does not man that there is no fan following. See the Trabant, the poor East German were inflicted this car as nothing much else was available (like in India the Premier), after the reunification thousands were just thrown away, they littered even big cities like Berlin. Disposal was a problem bcause the body was plastic. But today, there is a fan following. Cheers harit Last edited by harit : 2nd February 2010 at 00:27. |
|
|
| |
|
2nd February 2010, 00:45
| #12 | |
| Senior - BHPian | Quote:
 As for the trabant, disposal should not have been a problem as Trabants were made of cotton fibres dipped in a bakelite-like resin called Duroplast. This material was edible and there were stories of farm animals like pigs and goats biting into Trabants and eating part of the body. Here are a few pics. of one such Trabant being half-eaten by a pig, in a movie: IMCDb.org: Trabant 601 S [P601] in "Crna macka, beli macor, 1998" | |
|
|
|
2nd February 2010, 01:04
| #13 | |
| Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Singapore, Mumbai, Nagpur
Posts: 2,166
Thanked: 223 Times
| True story of a very bad car by an inhumanly callous manufacturer Quote:
Back in 1968, when the USA market demand for sub-compacts like the VW Beetle was rising, Ford specified a car design -- not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000. During design, crash tests revealed that, in rear-end crashes over 40 km/h, the petrol tank always burst. To correct it would have required changing and strengthening the design -- a $11 cost per car. the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The petrol-tank filler tube would tear away from the tank, and petrol would pour onto the road around the car.  The crushed petrol tank would be jammed up against the differential housing spilling still more petrol. Both cars would be engulfed in flames. At 64 km/h there were good chances, the Pinto's doors would jam and its trapped passengers would burn to death. In those CATIA-less days, it took 43 months to transition a car design into production. However Ford corporate decided to breeze its cheapest subcompact of the 1970s, the Pinto into production in just 25 months. Earlier huge American cars had body on chassis-frame construction and the long frame under the trunk would crumple and prevent the fuel tank from being pushed onto the differential. However the Pinto was a small monocoque subcompact design. In a rear-end collision, the fuel tank would be pushed onto the long bolt studs on the differential cover. Those bolts which would puncture the tank and cause a fiery explosion. Now that is just plain bad engineering design, which has a $11 solution. Ford knew about it but chose in the board room to ignore it, because their assembly line machinery tooling was already ready. They concluded that adding $11 per vehicle design improvement for 12.5 million vehicles would cost them $ 137,000,000, whereas 180 people burned to death at $200,000 compensation per death, plus 180 people seriously burned at $67,000 compensation per burn injury plus $700 per vehicle would cost only $49,150,000. So, content to assign a dollar figure to human life and suffering, these unethical corporate honchos chose not to modify the Pinto for safety and chose instead to pay for accidents on a case-by-case basis. Ford gambled that it would cost less to pay for injuries and fatalities versus re-engineering the vehicles. The result? The ill-fated Ford Pinto's petrol tank would explode in a rear-end collision at even 30 km/hr. About 500 people burned to death in Ford Pintos. In Feb. 1978 the US courts awarded a 16-year-old boy, badly burned in a Pinto accident, $128,000,000 in damages -- the largest single-person injury judgment in history. Come May 1978, the US Dept of Transportation announced that Pinto was defective and called for a recall of all 1971 to 1976 Pintos. 14 lakh Pintos were recalled -- the most expensive recall in automotive history. Over 100 lawsuits against Ford forced them to pay millions of dollars in damages. Ford eventually killed the Pinto and replaced it with the Ford Escort. A powerful manufacturer brought to its knees by a first world country's strong legal system! Ram | |
|
|  (2)
Thanks
|
|
2nd February 2010, 10:29
| #14 |
| Senior - BHPian  Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi (for now)
Posts: 2,957
Thanked: 415 Times
| |
|
|
|
2nd February 2010, 11:08
| #15 | |
| Senior - BHPian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Mumbai
Posts: 4,036
Thanked: 3,311 Times
| Quote:
Agreed that this is subjective. The "worst" in a car need not make it a lemon, just some feature may be the worst. Mostly it is styling, sometimes engineering and any other reason you may think about which make it a flop. What was wrong with the Edsel? Ford had started with a clean sheet of paper. They went wrong mainly because they forgot to update with the new trend. Cheers harit | |
|
|
 |
Most Viewed