Got them "station wagons get no respect" blues . . . .

Keep in mind these people who belittle our big barges are those same people who pay the lumber yard, the furniture store, and others to haul their new purchases home. The same people, like my daughter's family, who take two cars to drive across town or across the state. Two cars that get maybe 25-30 MPG while my one wagon gets 20+. Who's saving money and having more fun?
To me these newer SUV's and Flex-thingamabobs are just as wide, long, and taller. When they leave the store they look into a sea of grey and white look alike thingamabobs trying to find their own. The way most find it is push the door remote and watch for lights and horns. I simply look for a bright red box with shiny chrome bumpers. Sadly I have to work so hard getting in it. I have to stick a key in a hole and turn the thing!
They leave in their generic look alike and no one notices. I leave in my station wagon, people take pictures, point, and stare.
Who cares about respect?

 

I recently had some idiot in a new Dodge Challenger try to tell me that Nora was too big and should be off the road. I just happened to have the sales brochure for the 78 Thunderbird with me, and we called up the specs on his plasticmobile. The numbers were very interesting indeed. The Challenger was all of 7 inches shorter, but was one inch wider, one inch taller, and weighed 400 pounds MORE than a 78 Thunderbird with a full frame and full sized spare. Oh, they get the same fuel economy, too.

 

Comparisons with modern "vehicles" - troubling.

Hi MikeT1961 and station wagon fans,

I've found that comparisons with modern cars can be "troubling." This new drivetrain combination for my wagon as a good chance of getting as much as 20 MPG city and 25 MPG or more on the highway.

That's actually quite close to the Buick Enclave (their current SUV.) Yet, the engine is about 1/2 the displacement. Now if the two cars are using precisely the same amount of gasoline per mile . . . it means that a modern car is producing about 1/2 the horsepower. My assumption is that the other half is actually being used to drive the anti-pollution equipment.

If that is true, is it really worth using 1/2 the power of the gasoline we burn to push the exhaust through the converters and the rest?

That sure isn't what I was expecting.

Cheers, Edouard

 

The problem with the new engines is torque, or rather, the lack of it! These new engines are WAY down on torque, especially in the low end. The Chrysler Hemi has a torque peak way up over 4,000 RPM. The 351M in Nora is putting out 350 lbs/ft at 1650. Big difference right there. The 351W in my 89 Grand Marquis was doing 390 lbs/ft at 2200 from the factory. That beast did 7 l/100km, or 40 miles to the Imperial gallon. That is roughly 33 mpg (American), right off the show room floor. With upgrades, I could have made it match a Toyota Prius for highway fuel consumption, but with a 5.8 litre engine, not a 1.5!

I forgot to mention, Nora is running 2 catalytic converters, as designed, and all other emissions equipment is functioning properly. She's as clean as I can get her for now. Later on, as cash permits, the fuel economy will climb, and the emissions will drop.

 

I was born in 1970, and my folks had a Chevy wagon. Then they traded that wagon in for another wagon, an early 80's Chevy. Of course at that time I was to "cool" to be seen in a wagon, there were only 3 of us. Now I am married with one 8 year old boy, with guess what, a WAGON!! Any time some one looks at our wagon my son says they have, wagon envy! I love it. We carry it to local cruise nights and have entered one show with it this summer, didn't win, but had fun. Long live the beached whale!

 

Should have rammed him.. then explained the advantage of a car built out of real steel and not plastic.. ha! I can't believe some idiot is telling somebody else what he or she should do with their car.. those type of folks don't get and and don't deserve the time of day.. whadda knob.

 

Ummm not true. In the last ten years of auto building how many times have you heard of a driver being impaled by the steering wheel? New cars, even tho their body panels are weak, have a much stronger strength of steel. Not sayin if you we're plowed by a 6000 pound wagon wouldn't hurt but an old car relies on brute strength as opposed to new cars which wreck smarter not harder. Not saying old cars weren't tough just sayin the technology of today's cars are leaps and bounds ahead of the good ol days.

 

Today's cars are not meant to be repaired but rather recycled. OK.. let's say FIVE miles an hour.. you're still going home (driving) in yours.. his is questionable. I'm not really suggesting anybody do that by the way.. Don't forget side swipes and just plain ol' opening of door. The new SUVs if bumped from behind and have a spare mounted on back can cause thousands of dollars worth of damage. If you are lucky enough to buy a car with some metal on it.. it's so thin you have to replace and entire panel. No... no thanks.. gimme the old metal anyday. Don't plan on doing any head-ons anytime soon.. but your point is well taken. Yes, todays cars are build on "crumple" technology and protecting the driver.. not so much the car.

 

Good point. Haha how bout the argument that a Mazda miata handles better than almost any car made before the nineties. Lol my point is yes today's cars suck in looks but they are so much more advanced than the cars of yesterday. Can anyone say mechanical brakes haha

 

Ha! OK.. which would you rather have in a Demolition Derby? Ha!