The demise of the rear wheel drive/Police intercep

Hillbilly · Nov 11, 2001

I suppose I am just a little disgusted with my 1993 C-1500 4x4 work truck 70,000 miles and it has been maintained well(oil change every 3000 miles) and almost looks as good as it was the day I bought it new.
I had to put a new distributor on it at around 50,000(left me walking) and the standard transmission has a leak,and both motor mounts are broke and the valve seals are bad( I am going to try to get these taken care of this week).I have had to have the right front axle seal replaced,a new switch on it that tells the 4 wheel drive to engage was replaced.I will keep it for a long time though,its paid for and it looks good and it does alright for a 6 cylinder.

StanInCalif · Nov 11, 2001

Scruffy-
I've had the opposite experience with a 1970 Ford PU. Only two warranty repairs, and I still haven't done anything major- Lots of sets of points, though.

scruffy · Nov 11, 2001

Stan, I'm not saying that they are all the same. It was just my experience with that 71 that has kept me from buying Fords. At the same time, one brother run his Ford to death, and it kept on a ticken! The one I had bought (so I found out from date built)was one of the very first off the assembly line after a major strike. Piece of junk. The day the warrenty ran out, it was out of my driveway, and a new Chevy in it! Over the next six months, that Ford P/U was owned by two separate individuals, and at the 18th month (last time I saw it) it was sitting abandoned beside the road about 35 miles from town. Never saw it again after that. Hope no-one else did either!

bgott · Nov 11, 2001

The Chevy had an LT1 Corvette 350 and the Ford is stuck with the 4.6. The cops I've talked to say that a kid on a stolen bicycle can outrun the Ford. Law enforcement wants Ford to install the 5.4 in them but that would affect Ford's CAFE numbers so they won't do it. A lot of the S.O. boys around here are starting to show up in the Impala.I haven't had a chance to talk to any of them about the Impala but the way they talk the Crown Vic down I bet they figure anything would be an improvement.

ERNIEB · Nov 11, 2001

Scruffy, maybe you remember Ford, and I think Mercury too, made a V8, that had Intercepter on the valve covers. I'm thinking it was the 312. Anyway, they made the same engine with plain valve covers. Otherwise They looked identical. I never did figure out what, if any, difference there was./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Ernie

StanInCalif · Nov 12, 2001

Scruffy, I don't think quality was as consistent back then as it is now, especially with non- GM products. At the time, I think Ford was in the early stages of taking over the light truck market from GM. Some of their stuff was good; some wasn't. I must admit that I have a 1971 F250, bought used, that has been a bit troublesome.

scruffy · Nov 12, 2001

Ernie, that engine had a little higher compression ratio, was built to sell to Law Enforcement agencies if I remember correctly. I think you're right on the displacement, but won't entirely rule out the early 292, but I think the 312 was a 'beefier' 292 or was that 290....been too long, but that was a later year model I believe. I had a 1958 ford 2/dr hdtp that had a 352 in it. Turned out only 50 of them produced for 'experimental' models, its head bolt patterns/valley cover, gasquets were all different than the later mass produced engines. Had to hand make all the gaskets on that turkey! If I remember right, the first Overhead valve V8 produced by ford was the 232 in 1953/54. Sure had a penchant for everything being XX2 cu in.

scruffy · Nov 12, 2001

Stan, ford was quite debatible back then!! Just look at their prize winning, world class beating, horse coller....the Edsel!/w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif Did like their early Bronco's though.

Bird · Nov 12, 2001

We'll never get past personal preferences with autos, just as we won't with tractors./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Ernie, if I remember right, my '56 black & white Mercury Montclair convertible had a 312 engine; gold colored engine with blue valve covers and air filter housing; beautiful!

And Scruffy, I liked our '65 Ford squad cars so well, I bought a new '66 Ford sedan myself; worst lemon I ever got in, and wouldn't buy a Ford product again until '91. My dad spent a good part of his life in the auto parts business and once said he loved Fords, kept him in business; just didn't want to own one (he liked to stay with Olds and Buick in those days).

When I started in law enforcement ('64), we drove Fords, 289 V-8 (they were first with synchronized low gear with the old 3 speed column mounted gear shift). In '66, we went to Chev., 283 V-8 (finally got the synchronized low), had so many problems with them, had to buy some Fords in mid-year (although I personally never had any complaints with the Chev.). '67 Fords just felt a little heavy and awkward handling, '68 Fords were our first air-conditioned cars 302 V-8, disk brakes (really felt heavy on the front end and hard steering), '69 Fords finally had automatic transmissions and power steering, '70 went to big Plymouths, some 400 and some 440 engines - 70 Plymouths had bad brake fade when they got hot until I wrote a long letter about the hazards and Chrysler changed all the disk brake pads to semi-metallic - made the brakes work well and squeak like the dickens, '75 went to Ambassadors (concensus was that it was the sorriest car ever put in a police fleet, but I never even drove one of them personally - still had my Plymouth). Then we went to the smaller Plymouths for a few years (finally had to spec them out because there wasn't room to install all the equipment - radios, mobile phones, mobile digital terminals, and a few other things). Went back to Fords, and then in the late '80s to Chev. again, so I was driving a Caprice when I retired in '89. The big Ford and the big Chev. felt a little different, but I wouldn't have given a nickel for the difference, and for the most part had no complaints with any of them. My personal favorite - '74 Plymouth Satellite with a 400 engine. Oh well, how's that for rambling and trying my old memory?/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

fishman · Nov 12, 2001

Yep Hillbilly, those Chevy work trucks seem to have problems. We had a couple where I worked in '94, and their valves were already shot. No power either. My dad has a '92, and it has the same problem (soft metal used for the guides, I think). Anyway, his transmission went bad after 30,000 miles and was replaced under warrenty. His truck only has about 80,000 on it now, and with a 3.55 rear end and a wide-ratio 5-speed, it is sorely lacking in power. That carburated 6 cylinder is marginal for a full-size 4wd, in my opinion.

As an aside, he was told by the dealer that the leaky valves would not affect performance or motor longevity, so he hasn't done anything about it. Just endures the puff of blue smoke at every startup.

All the other Chevy's he or I have owned have been great.