Looking back 30 years...the more things change...

[2011G6E]

I was cleaning up my new shed and organising packing case after packing case of old car and motorbike magazines, and I came across a Wheels magazine, from November 1984.
I thought it might be interesting to have a bit of a look at the car industry as it was back then.

What drew me to this particular issue was that it had a pair of Falcons on the front...XF Falcons. It was headlined with "Super Falcon! Driving Fords XF. Much, much more than just a facelift!"

First up, in the editorial "Wheels Within", by Peter Robinson, he writes about how people could easily be turned off Australian built cars by small things like manufacturing mistakes and faults, and how they would then turn to foreign cars. It specifically mentions his brothers experience with the Camira, a car which had easily won Car Of The Year in 1982. He had always bought Australian cars, until the Camira soured it for him. It lists the problems he had with it right from new, and the column ends with the following, almost psychic, paragraph about Australian cars and what happens when makers get complacent and think people will just naturally "buy Australian" no matter what...

But for brother Jim, who just paid more than ten big ones, these excuses and rationalisations don't count for anything. Not when the opposition can offer a Civic wagon or Nimbus and he knows, just knows, neither will have him visiting the dealer with a long list of faults.
More significantly, in the long term, his feeling of loyalty to the local car makers has flown out the window in the interests of safety and trouble free motoring. And you can understand why.
If the locals want to compete...survive more accurately...against the Japanese and if the cars we make in Australia are going to rival their imported competition in a more open market, then their quality must match the others. There is no point in introducing a new model that doesn't meet this all-important prerequisite.
Ask the used car trade about the Camira and its second hand value and they will shrug their shoulders and not want to know. If only its brilliance on the road was matched by it's performance in the warranty claims department"

Nowadays Australian made cars are great...but the public hasn't got the message...too many years of mediocre models that don't have the same equipment level as much cheaper foreign alternatives is the issue.


Then, in the "News" section, there was another story that resonated with stuff talked about on this forum frequently...

There's a 50/50 chance Ford will be selling Mustangs in Australia next year!
Broadmeadows has yet to make up its mind but the optimists in the company believe there is a small...say 200 to 300 per year after an initial burst of sales enthusiasm...but healthy market for the American sporty. Both turbo 2.3 ltr four and V8 versions have been looked at, but if the program goes ahead we believe only the bent eight will make it to local showrooms.
There is also a possibility that the convertible versions could be offered as an alternative to the coupe. Price is expected to be about $40,000 (2014 edit: at the time that money would buy you nearly two Fairlanes or Statesmans) and that's one of the stumbling blocks to the project.

There was also a section on another development that was supposedly "only a year or so away and which would revolutionise" things.
Electric turbochargers. It was an experimental thing being done by Mitsubishi, and showed a lot of promise. Amazing that we still don't see anything much of this today except "development work".

There was an amazing news story about a revolutionary thing released by Renault in Australia...

Renault has released an updated Fuego in Australia, with PLID, the worlds first remote control door locking and unlocking system on a production car.
The system is activated by aiming the transmitter at the receiver mounted in the cars roof lining from anywhere up to two meters away, locking or unlocking both or either door.

Wow...wonder if that idea will ever take off?


Also, something surprising. CVT transmissions are around...but still have problems and issues for users and manufacturers.

The new automatics from Isuzu and Subaru are late and getting later.
.............
Subaru planned to offer its version of the van Doorne belt-drive CVT, called the ECVT, in about May '85, but now says Van Doorne is unable to supply the steel belts. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but the company is now declining to say when the transmission might be available, so either politics or serious technical problems have arisen.

Turned out it was the latter...amazing that so simple an idea still has so many drawbacks and issues...


The big story in the issue was a full test of the XF Falcon...and what a great looking car it still is even looking back thirty years...in my mind especially both the yellow and the red S-Packs they have on the cover.


I love looking back in time with these old mags.

[K_Man]

Old car magazines are fantastic, I have managed to collect most wheels magazines from 1988ish onwards (plus assorted older ones), and a decent collection of Motor (or modern motor back then) and CAR Australia (remember them?), was only just recently flicking through the 88 COTY wheels (VN Commodore) and the nostalgia is fantastic. Anyone remember the 10, 000km megatest of the EA and VN? Or how everyone gushed over the locally produced TM Magna, and almost every issue had something about the upcoming Ford Capri.

Makes for depressing reading sometimes though, how things have gone so horribly wrong now.

[pottery beige]

old mags rock, so funny the amount of ads in 50 - 60s era mags sprouting the virtues of magical molybedinum oil additive products

this ones pretty awesome - water and alcohol injection 1954

[2011G6E]

I remember seeing water injection adverts into the eighties...Street Machine even did an article on it I believe and tested the benefits or otherwise. I'll have to see if I can dig that issue out when I get to the huge box of Street MAchine mags.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

old mags rock, so funny the amount of ads in 50 - 60s era mags sprouting the virtues of magical molybedinum oil additive products

this ones pretty awesome - water and alcohol injection 1954

image

I had Water injection fitted to a HR Holden many years ago, found it kept the carbon deposits down in the head when I checked for reconditioning the engine, we were surprised how clean it was.

Never noticed any gains in power or economy as this was the reason they advertised in those days.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by trublu

I had Water injection fitted to a HR Holden many years ago, found it kept the carbon deposits down in the head when I checked for reconditioning the engine, we were surprised how clean it was.

Never noticed any gains in power or economy as this was the reason they advertised in those days.

I believe...without actually being able to check the magazine in question at the moment...that this was the result of their testing. Yes, it did do a sterling job of keeping carbon deposits down, but no, it didn't actually increase power.

[Blem]

Fairly sure back in the 2nd world war the Germans used water injection in some of their planes.
Can't remember the reasoning. Better fuel economy/distance ?

Standard petrol was about 30c / lt in the early 80's

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Blem

Fairly sure back in the 2nd world war the Germans used water injection in some of their planes.
Can't remember the reasoning. Better fuel economy/distance ?

Standard petrol was about 30c / lt in the early 80's

I think I recall that too.

Petrol...yes, when I started driving in 1982, petrol was about 35 cents a liter. I had my Charger with the heavily worked 265 Hemi in it, and was chucking over $50 a week in fuel down it's throat driving to a farm outside town to work, drag racing on friday and saturday nights, taking out girls, etc...

[Nikked]

Water injection was used to increase power in fighters engines kept temperatures down and allowed for a few more RPM's and a little bit more power...fuel was conserved as the engines ran leaner...to an extent...


Used in jets too...




Then there was methanol...

[2011G6E]

I've seen video of civilian airliners like the early DC10's and Boeing 707's taking off leaving streams of black smoke like that...something to do with the different formulation of aviation fuel back then.

I vividly remember the Bundaberg Air Show when "Connie" the restored Super Constellation air liner visited. They did a few take offs and fly pasts, and the announcer said that when the plane was new, aviation fuel was something like over 140 octane, and in a full throttle take off it would billow three foot flames out the exhausts of the magnificent great radial engines, but now that aviation fuel was "only" 100 octane, it now only showed a few short spits of flames at full throttle. They did a take off at dusk when you could see it better, and yes, there were still flames spitting out the exhausts of the engines, but it would have been something to see in the old days...

Of course they still used old style oiling systems, and it was pretty spectacular when they first fired it up...and I thought my old Kawasaki 750 two stroke triple created some smoke...


Back on cars, some of the old adverts were a giggle...Certainly can't be accused of false advertising...it's quite correct...


Oh, and onto "the opposition"...next time someone tells you that the Torana "XU2" was going to be a little LJ XU1 with a V8 in it, well, now you know better...it was nothing but a briefly considered code name for the V8 version of the next Torana which was designed to have a 4, 6, or V8 in it.
By the "blocks" underneath, it would appear to be a pre-production clay model. You still see them now with some clay models of new cars.

[Nikked]

The black smoke is due to injection of water...something to do with the water extinguishing the flame quicker and exsess fuel burning.

[XR Martin]

[Taily]

Slightly off topic but to address a couple of posts above...

The picture of Connie belching smoke during start up is more to do with the physical design of radial engines rather than any "special" or "old design" oiling system. That is the lower cylinders (the ones at the bottom of the "corn cob" will collect oil in them after shut down as the engine cools. Then, before starting the engines if they have been sitting for anything longer than an hour or so, it is recommended to manually turn the prop through at least 9 blades (3 revolutions of the engine) to allow the oil collected in the lower couple of cylinders to escape past the valves back out into either manifold. What this does is stop a hydraulic lock from occurring and the engine breaking a conrod (or even worse) during start. It looks spectactular, is usually accompanied by a lot of smoke and noise and a grumpy idle until the plugs clear, but is entirely normal of radial aircraft engines.

The exhaust stack flames are common as piston engined aircraft usually run very short, open exhausts (they don't run mufflers - but the main noise you actually hear in "noisy prop aircraft are the prop tips nearing the speed of sound), or augmenters (pipes with holes in the sides). A Connie has what are known as two stage superchargers fitted (HI/LO boost), with HI boost being reserved for high altitude operation only as it would supply too much boost down low and the engine would grenade, which they used to do quite regularly back when Connies and DC3s and 4s etc ruled the skies. As mentioned we don't have the old octane rated fuels available anymore so the engines don't quite go like they used to in days gone by. Piston aircraft engines only ever rev to a few thousand RPM (governed by prop tip speed or if a reduction gearbox is fitted), but have to deliver their maximum power and torque at this low RPM so the designed cylinder pressures can be very very high to achieve this.

The black smoke you see pouring out of the B52s and out of the old JT6 jetpipes are synonymous of the technology of the time. There were no such thing as high bypass turbofans available back when those aircraft were manufactured. These days with the constant push for faster, quieter, further on ever decreasing amounts of fuel jet transport engines have evolved a long way from the straight through (known as pure) jet engines of the 50s and 60's. If you take a look at what the difference I am referring to (and I am grossly over simplifying it) you'll see that while a modern jet engine is still a jet engine, they now use a much smaller jet engine in the centre behind a larger (ducted) fan assembly to impart a greater mass flow to the surrounding air using a lot less fuel and most of the jet characteristic "crackle" of the old pure jets is confined and muffled within the rearward flow of air/exhaust. So they don't sound the same now, nor do they belch smoke like they used to.

Not too sure about just water injection (have seen it on a turbo'd alloy headed XD sedan back in the late 80's) but an aircraft type I once operated (turboprop Metroliners) uses a water/meth solution housed in a tank in either the nose or the belly (dependant upon variant) of the aircraft. The way it works is quite simple. When it was required during a take-off roll (say we had a heavy load to lift out of a hot/high density alt strip) we would arm the system at the correct time and it would spray a metered dose of the mixture into the intake of each engine, cooling and making the intake charge much more dense, which allows the engine to develop more power (to a point). You certainly knew it when the 50 odd lts of water meth ran out after take-off on a hot day.

Didn't want to take it too far off topic, hope that cleared a couple of things up.

Taily.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

image

Is that...a gas turbine bolted to the back of the diff...???

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Taily

The black smoke you see pouring out of the B52s and out of the old JT6 jetpipes are synonymous of the technology of the time.

Not too sure about just water injection .

Im sorry, but the black smoke is a by-product...

As we lined up on the runway I'd shift the nose-wheel steering to low range, advance the throttles and then turn on the water injection. It would get even noisier as 2000 pounds of water was pumped into the engines to augment our thrust.

I always thought that water injection was something Wile E. Coyote invented to catch the Roadrunner. I'm pretty sure it said "ACME" on it somewhere. Pouring water on a fire doesn't seem very intuitive, but it works. The water cools the air going into the engines. The denser air lets us burn more fuel to make more thrust. As the water turns to steam, it also gives us more thrust. It's sort of a poor-man's afterburner. We sometimes referred to our planes as "water wagons" or "steam jets".

This also produced a tremendous amount of dense, black smoke. If you were taking off behind another bomber (sometimes as close as 12 seconds) you couldn't see a whole lot.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...e-B-52-Part-2#

[Taily]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Im sorry, but the black smoke is a by-product...


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...e-B-52-Part-2#

By product? Of what? The black smoke is not purely a byproduct of water/meth injection, lets that straightened out now....

More black smoke maybe when using the system, but the fact that many civilian jet liners of the age that did use the systems when the airframes were brand new, but a few years into their lives the development of pure jets had made the water/meth systems redundant as the fleets were brought up to the later spec powerplants. The B707/KC135, the DC8, fact is any jet airliner of the time could leave a pall of smoke that would envelop an airport or a small town in thick choking black smoke if the wind was light enough even after the systems were retired in airliners. That was just where engine development was back then, thick black smoke was part of the deal.

Just because you read a story in a blog does not make what is written entirely correct. He is right with what he attributes to very thick black smoke, but the fact that the smoke was there at all was not solely due to the water/meth as you imply. I can understand the way that piece was written where you would get that idea from though.

Hope that helps...

Taily.

[Taily]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Is that...a gas turbine bolted to the back of the diff...???

Yeah I think it was....

[buggerlugs]

Ah , the Camira, Wheels car of the year. I'd have a safe bet that a lot on money changed hands from Fisherman's Bend to the office of "Wheels" to get that result..............

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

Ah , the Camira, Wheels car of the year. I'd have a safe bet that a lot on money changed hands from Fisherman's Bend to the office of "Wheels" to get that result..............

The thing is (surprisingly I supposed, looking back from today) the Camira had every appearance of being an amazing car...they had plenty of room for a mid-sizer, they were based on the proven J car platform used elsewhere in the world, they had a brand new series of engines built right here, the "Family 2" engines which were very fuel efficient (for the time) and produced a decent amount of power (again, for the time). The cars had a lot of good equipment and for a few bucks more you could get SLX trim levels which were even better. They appeared to be the new face of modern motoring in Australia and should have sold by the truckload to people who didn't actually need a car as big as a Commodore.

If it hadn't been for the abysmal and lazy build quality, as well as problems with the first engines, they would have dominated the mid-sized section of the market, but instead they sadly gained a quick reputation for faults and shoddy quality.
Sad really...the Australian motor industry had come up with a true world class car (again I say "apparently") that exposed people to the idea that you didn't need a big six cylinder sedan to have a decent family car...but it shot itself in the foot.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

Ah , the Camira, Wheels car of the year. I'd have a safe bet that a lot on money changed hands from Fisherman's Bend to the office of "Wheels" to get that result..............

It was a decent car when new, and can you name a car released here in 1982 that was better?

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

It was a decent car when new, and can you name a car released here in 1982 that was better?

5.8 litre 4 speed XE ESP

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by GT-0733

5.8 litre 4 speed XE ESP

With all storming 149kw.
But, that was the era and we can'tbe too harsh...there's another thread on here about old car magazines, and I made a comment about the details in a magazine someone was asking about...it was the December '82 Wheels magazine with the big test of an XE ESP Ghia and a VH Commodore Brock Group Three SS.

That's the issue I love to look at as it really gives a picture of the era, and what constituted a "performance car" at the time...especially the "power" outputs of the romping stomping V8's in those cars. The Brock modified 5 liter in the Commodore SS Group Three was rated at a claimed 180kw...perfectly respectable for the time (in fact mind bending for the time) when a standard five liter only put out 132kw...

But Ford fans shouldn't laugh too hard...the last of the 351's in the XE ESP put out...wait for it...149kw. Almost outshone by Corollas of today.

Yes yes yes, some people will shout and say "But they started formulating the power outputs differently!!!", and yes, you're quite right...they did.
Instead of a bare-of-all-ancillaries engine bolted to a dyno with open exhausts, they used engines as fitted to the street cars...full exhaust, alternator, water pump, fan, air cleaner, all emissions equipment, etc...just as the engine you actually bought in the real car would produce it's power.

That's why after about 1977 when ADR27A was really starting to bite, that you notice in the back of the magazines where they had the big listing of all the new cars for sale, their details, and their prices from all the makers, that they suddenly stopped quoting the power output along with all the other information...everything else was there, except power output. It was clear why...they were embarrassed by the shocking loss of power once they had to comply with the new regs under ADR27A.
I mean hell...the 253 V8 in our WB ute, when new, only put out 100kw. However, most four cylinders of the time were only wheezing out 60kw, so that wasn't too bad I suppose...

Different times...

[NAK302]

i had that mag, XE v Brock. they gave the trophy to the Brock, but in my eyes the Brock wasn't a factory car, it was aftermarket. so apples and oranges.

to say a current corolla outshines the ol' ESP is stupid. different era, different applications. the XE ESP was a very fine road car built for fast, efficient highway driving for a family and their luggage.
yeah you're right 149kw, tuned down to appease the insurance agencies and pathetic green wishes of the time. totally dead 2 years later because of mandatory fuel changes.

times haven't changed at all......

[2011G6E]

Speaking of power...looking at the same 1984 issue of Wheels, the following figures are interesting:

* Ford 4.1x-flow - 98kw
* Ford 5.8 (only in the Bronco) - a real powerhouse at 162kw (compared to previous years 351's like the 149kw in the XE ESP).
* Ford Laser - 54kw

* Holden 3.3 - 86kw
* Holden 5.0 - 126kw
* Holden Gemini - 60kw
* Camira - 64kw

* Toyota Corolla - 54kw

The highest output available in Australia as a production car was, of course, the Lamborghini Countach S at 276kw. The Porsche 911 carrera Turbo and the 928 both made 221kw. Close behind was the magnificent V12 Jaguar XJ-HE with 197.7kw.

The lowest were the tiny little vans/wagons you used to see, the last new cars that still had crossply tyres actually...the Diahatsu HandiVan with 22kw, and the little Suzuki Hatch with a miserable 19kw...

[rjr]

Originally Posted by Blem

Fairly sure back in the 2nd world war the Germans used water injection in some of their planes.
Can't remember the reasoning. Better fuel economy/distance ?

Standard petrol was about 30c / lt in the early 80's

Water/Menthanol is used/injected in some piston engine planes to give more power on take off ... typically when they have extra weight on board. It probably was used as a power adder during flight in WW2.

It's still used to this day.

[Franco Cozzo]

^ Water/methanol injection is real big in the USA in the performance diesel groups.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Speaking of power...looking at the same 1984 issue of Wheels, the following figures are interesting:

* Ford 4.1x-flow - 98kw
* Ford 5.8 (only in the Bronco) - a real powerhouse at 162kw (compared to previous years 351's like the 149kw in the XE ESP).
* Ford Laser - 54kw

* Holden 3.3 - 86kw
* Holden 5.0 - 126kw
* Holden Gemini - 60kw
* Camira - 64kw

* Toyota Corolla - 54kw

The highest output available in Australia as a production car was, of course, the Lamborghini Countach S at 276kw. The Porsche 911 carrera Turbo and the 928 both made 221kw. Close behind was the magnificent V12 Jaguar XJ-HE with 197.7kw.

The lowest were the tiny little vans/wagons you used to see, the last new cars that still had crossply tyres actually...the Diahatsu HandiVan with 22kw, and the little Suzuki Hatch with a miserable 19kw...

And that's why having something like a xf fairmont or something as a daily can suck lol.
I love the looks, even the way they drive, but unless your willing to do a 4.0l swap, or heavily mod the cross flow then your easy picking at the traffic light Grand Prix.

[rjr]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

^ Water/methanol injection is real big in the USA in the performance diesel groups.

I don't own a diesel BD but I might have to do some reading up on that subject...sounds interesting.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

And that's why having something like a xf fairmont or something as a daily can suck lol.
I love the looks, even the way they drive, but unless your willing to do a 4.0l swap, or heavily mod the cross flow then your easy picking at the traffic light Grand Prix.

You can have the best of both worlds...we always wanted to fit a newish twin cam six and modern auto into our XC-update Fairmont GXL. Would have been very nice.

It's also something younger drivers and car enthusiasts don't understand most likely...they'll see someone who started driving in the seventies or eighties take a new four cylinder cars for a drive, maybe not even a particularly sporty model like a Focus ST but something like a Corolla or Subaru Impreza, and the young guys will wonder why we seem so surprised and comment on how well it goes.
Well you would too if you grew up in an era when V8's made piddling (by todays standards) horsepower unless you spent up big on modifications, an era when six cylinders were just "OK", and when we used to see four cylinders as something for granny, apart from the few oddballs who spent the time and effort on, for example, a 2 liter in an Escort or Cortina.
When you drive a new car, you of course mentally compare it to every other car you've owned, and it can surprise you.
For instance, back in 1982 my well worked 265 hemi Charger was a lumpy fuel guzzling rocketship of a car capable of easily walking away from most V8's in town, and it was dynoed and calculated to put out 270hp at the flywheel...but that was the result of a lot of engine work and a 500 Holley, with fuel "economy" at rediculous levels.
Then in early 2011 we bought a brand new G6E Falcon, and I was constantly amazed at how the engine in it put out practically the same horsepower as my Charger, but was smooth running and used less fuel than my 1982 2 liter Celica does.


I'll hit fifty next year, so I think I am allowed to say "Some of you young whipper snappers don't know how good you got it...get out and try and drive some old cars...standard unmodified ones if you can...and you'll see what we mean."

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by rjr

I don't own a diesel BD but I might have to do some reading up on that subject...sounds interesting.

Pick up a Diesel Power magazine and have a look through, there has been a lot on the subject over the last few years I've been a subscriber to it.

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/d...n/viewall.html

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/1...nol_injection/

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/1...h_is_too_much/