I was just recalling some of the controversial changes in cars and auto stuff over the last decades, how they were received, which have survived the test of time.

Motor oil is an endless source of debate. My dad first happily used 10W-30 Kendall oil in the mid fifties in a Lincoln Cosmopolitan. A decade later, the two service advisors at Frost & French in LA (one of the longest surviving Studebaker-Packard dealers) argued heatedly against multi viscosity oils. To prove their point, I was led to a gray Lark six with a destroyed engine. The thing was filled with a heavy gray paste. The car was one of a California state motor pool fleet, all maintained with 10W-30 oil under a contract with Chevron (Standard Oil of California). Apparently the viscosity stabilizer additives in a mediocre base stock had deteriorated drastically under less than ideal conditions and perhaps casual oil change intervals. The engine was one of several being replaced at Chevron’s expense.

Mercedes USA and it’s dealers resisted synthetic oils with a passion. Their service guys had a fit when I suggested putting Delvac 1 (a heavy duty version of Mobil 1) in a ‘79 MB Diesel wagon. In the late nineties, Mercedes markedly extended oil change intervals at the same time that they introduced high quality synthetic oil on the production line. MBUSA disapproved, calling buyers of new cars in right away for a “complimentary” change to fairly undistinguished conventional oil. I was one of those buyers, and my E320 soon had lifter noise. There were sludge related engine failures; Mercedes was forced to extend warranty coverage on engines because of that debacle.

Air quality became a national and regional concern. Zeal and greed led to difficult situations, especially in California. Retrofit gadgets were pushed without much thought. Licensed installers demanded that crankcase ventilation systems be installed on supercharged cars (like my ‘57 Golden Hawk), cars specifically exempted by the law. In the mid sixties, there was an edict requiring another retrofit. This was a small rubber plug blocking vacuum to the spark advance, also a sticker applied to the speedometer advising that speed not exceed 50 miles per hour. That scheme collapsed within weeks. Early catalytic converters were iffy. Twice I had nearly new cars strangle on their converters in heavy traffic. Neither would restart until it had loudly farted a cloud of rotten egg fumes. A ‘56 Packard required inspection at a CA state operated facility for change of ownership. The badged heavyset woman with a clipboard demanded to know if the Packard was a GM, Ford or Chrysler product. My attempted explanation brought threats of my physical removal by security as “disruptive.” Recalling that the big Packard had a Rochester four barrel and Delco Remy electrics, I meekly said “GM” and easily passed inspection.

Multi viscosity oils are now the rule, synthetics (at least the good ones) have proved their worth, snd clean air technology has matured. Chevron is a highly respected supplier. But it all took time, and there were many missteps along the way. Something to remember when contemplating big changes.

Gil
Springfield, Missouri

my take away from all that is new things often have unintended consequences. Waiting for real world data is probably a good idea in most cases.

Or maybe I just had too much time on my hands this afternoon????

Gil
Springfield, Missouri

Sportsedan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or maybe I just had too much time on my hands this afternoon????

Definitely agree...

Sportsedan wrote:
"Early catalytic converters were iffy. Twice I had nearly new cars strangle on their converters in heavy traffic. Neither would restart until it had loudly farted a cloud of rotten egg fumes."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL. I think my associate may be a catalytic convertor especially if I feed him hamburgers.

I think our PCVs are a good thing.
Maybe AIR wouldn't have been so bad without open chamber heads. How did 140s do with AIR since they still kept a squish? They did recurve the distributor in a suspicious manner. It's just air after the fact but I suppose the last thing we need is more heat.
I'm still not exactly Mister Synthetic, nervously clinging to the notion that it might just sneak past the crankshaft seals.

Jim Brandberg
Isanti, MN
CorvairRepair.com

I've run synthetic in everything I own for many years.

Joel
Northlake, TX
5 Ultravans, 145 Corvairs and counting...

joelsplace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've run synthetic in everything I own for many years.


I also was an early convert to synthetic, first used Mobil 1 around 1975. Back in the sixties I was in line for the introduction of radial whitewall tires made by Michelin and sold by Sears. No regrets, though neither product line was quite ready for prime time. I think the oil was only offered in something like 5W20 but promoted for general use in everything.

The radials required tubes, were initially available in just a couple of small sizes. Sears would install them on anything that would hold still. A classmate proudly showed up with a brand new Stingray equipped with 185/80R14 Sears radials. Hard to keep a straight face!

Gil
Springfield, Missouri



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2023 05:56PM by Sportsedan.

I ran a GT3 Vair back in the nineties. It held seven quarts of oil and I used Valvoline racing oil. Forget what weight. I held to the old adage, "Pennsylvania based motor oils". A friend convinced me to try Mobil 1. After eight or so hot laps, three quarts of that Mobil one we're all over my engine compartment. Back to the Valvoline with which I never had an issue. Just my two cents.

Frankford, De., eight miles north of Ocean City, Md.
1966 Corsa convt.

The Pennsylvania based oils were all that my Studebaker dealer used. Either Pennzoil single grade or Studebaker-Packard branded oil they stocked in barrels.

Agree that it’s taken a while for these innovations to mature. If I were still having oil changes every 1200 or 1500 miles as in those times, I’d likely still be using a Pennsylvania based conventional oil.

Gil
Springfield, Missouri

Sportsedan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I also was an early convert to synthetic, first used Mobil 1 around 1975. Back in the sixties I was in line for the introduction of radial whitewall tires made by Michelin and sold by Sears. No regrets, though neither product line was quite ready for prime time. I think the oil was only offered in something like 5W20 but promoted for general use in everything.
>
> The radials required tubes, were initially available in just a couple of small sizes. Sears would install them on anything that would hold still.


Two thoughts:
1) I currently use 0W20 Mobil 1 in three of my newest cars. No problems; I thought this was one of the highest-rated new car oils currently?


2) Re: Tubes for radials. Are special tubes required for radial tires? I need to replace tires on a mid-40s car that has original (non-safety) rims.
Some tire stores (like WalMart) refuse to put tubes in tires due to "company policy". Other tire stores have never heard of "radial" tubes, just regular ones. BTW, 205-75R15.

Kevin
Medina, OH

The key to your thoughts on the Mobil 1 0W20 is you use it in your newest cars. Back in the mid seventies cars weren’t required to be engineered to maximize fuel economy and were not intended to use these oils. I use 0W20 Castrol Edge in my wife’s late model Subaru, meets manufacturer’s requirements.

I don’t know about retrofitting tubes in modern tubeless tires. The Sears Michelin tires I first around ‘66 or ‘67 were not tubeless. They did transition to a tubeless version shortly after. The only other radial tubes I recall seeing online were specifically for certain replica vintage style Michelin tires for classic European cars.

Gil
Springfield, Missouri



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2023 04:21PM by Sportsedan.

Besides, why would you need tubes if steel wheels are in good shape?

Gil
Springfield, Missouri

Sportsedan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides, why would you need tubes if steel wheels are in good shape?


Something about the design of the wheel lip and how the tire bead holds it.
All wheel designs were changed (in the 50s?) to have safety rims for tubeless tires.

Kevin
Medina, OH

Kevin wrote: "All wheel designs were changed (in the 50s?) to have safety rims for tubeless tires."

Craig replies: For Corvairs, "Safety Rim" design that helps keep deflated tires on the rim, was incorporated for 1962 model year AFIK.

Craig N. Coeur d'Alene ID.
66 Black Monza 4dr, 4.2L V8 49k
61 Seamist Jade Rampside 140 PG
65 Canadian Monza 4dr 110/PG 40k
66 Sprint Corsa convt - First car! Re-purchased 43 years later
2+2 gnatsuM 5691

+17 Tons of parts

I was told by some tire people that if the rim size ends in .5 they don't have a safety bead. Like 14.5 (mobile home), 19.5 (super duty trucks) and 22.5 (semi).

RJ tools
Salem,Oregon

Other things people initially resisted:

Alternator: There are STILL some hold-outs who thing generators are better because they'll charge a completely dead battery. (Alternators require an "excitation" voltage to start working so a dead battery might not be able to start an alternator. This is mostly a moot point because most alternators have enough residual magnetism to self start.)

Front wheel drive: While you can make a "handling is better with RWD" argument, the reality is that 98.2% of drivers are willing to trade off limit-handling for the many packaging and traction benefits of FWD.

Serpentine belt: The "first glance" impression of complication left many cold to the idea. I can't tell you the number of "conversations" I've had with old-school guys about their unfounded dislike of serpentine belts.

Craig N. Coeur d'Alene ID.
66 Black Monza 4dr, 4.2L V8 49k
61 Seamist Jade Rampside 140 PG
65 Canadian Monza 4dr 110/PG 40k
66 Sprint Corsa convt - First car! Re-purchased 43 years later
2+2 gnatsuM 5691

+17 Tons of parts

cnicol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other things people initially resisted:
...
> Front wheel drive: While you can make a "handling is better with RWD" argument, the reality is that 98.2% of drivers are willing to trade off limit-handling for the many packaging and traction benefits of FWD

---

I'm a "1.8%" guy! FWD is a poor choice for "traction benefit" IMHO. Just watch FWD vehicles try to get around on hills in snow or even slick rain.
I've had one and got rid of it! I drive an AWD Chrysler Town & Country - vastly superior traction. Takes the FWD system, adds a viscous coupling to a rear driveshaft that goes to an independent rear axle system.

Corvair RWD puts most other "classic cars" to shame because of superior traction.



Tom Keosababian has this photo of his Turbo 140 eliminating the Shelby GT500 at Riverside half mile drags!!

---

>> Serpentine belt: The "first glance" impression of complication left many cold to the idea. I can't tell you the number of "conversations" I've had with old-school guys about their unfounded dislike of serpentine belts.

I've had bad experiences with serpentine belts!!! My Chrysler has a transverse V6 with very minimal clearance between the serpentine belt drive and the front strut towers.
Mine threw the snake on a rainy afternoon I had tools and another belt.
Over a freakin' hour getting that #%&! snake belt replaced in the pouring rain!!

---

Dan Davis ~ Pierce County, WA ~ CCF admin ~
CORSA +Corvairs NW + North Cascades Corvairs + Corvanatics
1966 Corsa Turbo coupe ~ ~ 1966 Corsa 140 Coupe ~ ~ 1965 Monza 140/4 Convertible Sierra Tan/Fawn ~ 1964 Monza Spyder Convertible ~ 1960 Monza Ermine White/Red PG ++ ~ 1965 Monza 140/4 CoupeEvening Orchid w/ ivory/black interior ~ 1962 Monza Wagon 102/4 ~ 1963 Rampside/Scamper ~ 1963 Red/Greenbrier ~ 1969 Ultra Van #468

cnicol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kevin wrote: "All wheel designs were changed (in the 50s?) to have safety rims for tubeless tires."
>
> Craig replies: For Corvairs, "Safety Rim" design that helps keep deflated tires on the rim, was incorporated for 1962 model year AFIK.

I plead ignorance on the date of introduction of “Safety Rims.” I do have some vague recollection of those mentioned in early 1950s Chrysler ads.

I think I used tubeless bias ply tires on a ‘48 Cadillac about thirty years ago. I definitely used tubeless radials on Studebakers and Packards (model years ‘55 to ‘58) with no issues at all. A ‘58 Continental still had all five original tires, tubeless Goodyears, on the 14 inch wheels.

Now it’s just the Corvair, and life is simpler. The ‘65 has Vredestein radials on original 13 inch wheels. Very happy with them.

Gil
Springfield, Missouri

Dan wrote: I've had bad experiences with serpentine belts!!! My Chrysler has a transverse V6 with very minimal clearance between the serpentine belt drive and the front strut towers.
Mine threw the snake on a rainy afternoon angry smiley I had tools and another belt.
Over a freakin' hour getting that #%&! snake belt replaced in the pouring rain!!"

Craig replies: Would it have been faster with the triple-stacked V-belts required before the adoption of a single, automatically tensioned, serpentine belt?

Craig N. Coeur d'Alene ID.
66 Black Monza 4dr, 4.2L V8 49k
61 Seamist Jade Rampside 140 PG
65 Canadian Monza 4dr 110/PG 40k
66 Sprint Corsa convt - First car! Re-purchased 43 years later
2+2 gnatsuM 5691

+17 Tons of parts