OT Texas Tesla crash

[nickel-city-fab]

But when you claim transportation that uses 100 year old tech, what could that possibly be? A 1921 Model T, perhaps? A 1921 ranger bicycle, complete with acetylene tank to power the "headlamp" perhaps? You can't buy a car made in the last 50 years that does not have improved suspension and running gear as well as superb ignition and fuel management.

Dan

What I mean by "100 yr old tech" is, a car with an internal combustion engine, operated entirely by a human who is hopefully awake and not on drugs. (I would quibble on the fuel management, as I had *very* good luck with GM carburetors with regards to reliability) Granted the HEI electonic ignition was a vast improvement over points.

[rmcphearson]

I have the utmost confidence in Tesla considering the founder:
1) Said his "biggest inspiration is Kanye West, and I fully support his campaign for president"
2) Tried to screw his loyal customers by claiming a faulty defroster was not a safety feature
3) Promised ventilators to terrified health care providers, then delivered a prototype made from car parts as advertising
4) Named is child (from his 10th marriage I think) R2D2

[J Tiers]

Dan, you better make that the last 3 or 40 years, and even then if it diicey.

I had a (very good, BTW) car from around 1970, which was carburetor, distributor spark ignition, and had NO computer. Very few had anything else.

[nickel-city-fab]

Dan, you better make that the last 3 or 40 years, and even then if it diicey.

I had a (very good, BTW) car from around 1970, which was carburetor, distributor spark ignition, and had NO computer. Very few had anything else.

Same here: dead nuts reliability in 1970 for me. HEI ignition (transistor pkg in the distributor), carburetor (which I tuned for my local area and altitude). Sold it finally in 1996 with almost 255k on the clock. It was nice not needing a parts store very often. Because it was owner-servicable.

[PStechPaul]

My first vehicles had carburetors, and all were fairly reliable. I rebuilt several of them, even though they may not have needed it. I had a 1966 Honda motorcycle, then a 1960 Ford Falcon (144-6 2sp auto), 1965 Chevy Malibu (230-6 3sp manual, 1960 Ford Econoline (200-6 3sp manual), 1966 Ford Econoline (with engine from 1960 van), 1970 Honda Motorcycle (350 5sp), 1967 Plymouth Valiant (225-slant 6 3sp manual). 1972 Toyota Corolla (1600-4 4sp manual), 1977 Toyota Corolla (1200-4 4sp manual), 1982 Toyota longbed pickup (4 cyl 5sp manual), and 1986 Isuzu Trooper (4 cyl 5sp manual). My first fuel-injected vehicle was my present 1989 Toyota pickup 4WD (4 cyl 5sp manual), then a 1978 Saturn SW1 (totaled in driveway), 1998 Saturn SL1 (also totaled in driveway), 1999 Saturn SL1 (frame rusted out). All were small 4 cyl 5sp manual.And then my present 2009 Honda Fit (in the shop, still). All vehicle engines were reliable enough, whether carbureted or fuel injected.

When I rebuilt the carburetor in my 1972 Toyota, I found the high and low speed jets were reversed. It ran much better when that was corrected

[nickel-city-fab]

My first vehicles had carburetors, and all were fairly reliable. I rebuilt several of them, even though they may not have needed it.
When I rebuilt the carburetor in my 1972 Toyota, I found the high and low speed jets were reversed. It ran much better when that was corrected

Same kind of experience here. The thing I like about the older tech is (for example) if the fuel pump goes, you could still get home. Not so with EFI. Same for ignitions: if a computer module goes, you're dead in the water and will need expensive parts. With points you still have the possibility of running. IMHO the new tech is wonderful in some ways especially the body and paint, interior etc. But the mechanicals are somewhat more fragile and less redundant nowadays IMHO. Certainly they run cleaner, but what good does that do you if it doesn't run and your next paycheck is 4 days away?