Radial Ride Rough on 71 AMC Matador

On 12/31/2013 2:03 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>
> Damping rod type shocks do the opposite of what you want - they offer
> little compliance over sharp bumps, but inadequate damping of body
> movements due to acceleration, turning, and braking. Modern shock
> designs with separate high and low speed damping circuits do the
> opposite - a large reason why proper modern cars handle much better with
> decent ride quality compared to older vehicles.
>
It was a pretty funny feeling the car move a little sidewards sometimes.
OTOH, it wasn't alarming nor did the car feel unstable. It felt stable
as hell. I'm driving a Passat station wagon now. I don't know if it's
because of the 4-wheel drive but it feels very stable and controlled
through corners. Neat stuff!

On 12/31/2013 6:06 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 12/31/2013 9:29 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> It was nicer than the cars build in the US with a complete gauge set[...]
>
> What! You do not love a foot-wide, rectangular, horizontally oriented
> speedometer that reads 120 mph when the car is going 95 mph?
>

Ha ha, that stuff is retro and I used to be fascinated by those
speedometers that moved side to side. I have no idea how those things
work but they're pretty cool.

sctvguy1 > wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:02:09 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> And this, in short, is why the Japanese car industry totally clobbered
>> us.
>
>I believe that the Japanese and Koreans made cars more like the US
>industry "used" to make: cars that were sized correctly, engines that got
>good gasoline mileage and plenty of room inside. Of course, now the
>Asians are starting to have the same problems that developed with Detroit
>products: crappy styling, cramped interiors and too many electrical
>options that go "south" too often.

When the Japanese first came into the US car industry in the sixties,
the cars they were selling were just terrible. They had severe rust
issues, they were tiny and often sized for people much smaller than the
typical Americans.

But over the course of a decade, the Japanese cars kept getting better
and better, and at the same time the American cars were getting worse
and worse. By 1975 the whole notion of quality control seems to have
totally escaped the Big Three. And so, eventually we got to a point
where the two lines crossed over and then everything went pear-shaped.

Your AMC comes from the time of that crossover.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 00:44:40 +0000 (UTC), sctvguy1
> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:22:48 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Did it ride rough before all the work was done? Perhaps it's got shocks
>> that are way too stiff. My recollection of the 71's even with the
>> police suspension was that they rode OK, not as good as the Plymouths of
>> the day but OK nevertheless.
>
>It was sloppy, the shocks are standard HD, not gas or spring/shock combo,
>just a heavier duty shock than the original. The springs are the
>original coils both front and rear. Tonight, I made the decision to sell
>this car to someone who wants an intermediate semi-muscle car. The
>360/2bbl has 245HP, Auto, A/C(converted to 134a), P/S, Power front disc/
>rear drum, factory dual exhaust and of course all the front end work, new
>brakes, etc.

Sounds like a nice car. I always liked them except for the front end
shake we could never get rid of. We only had the 287 engine and it
was quite peppy. It's a shame AMC went out of business, there cars
had a lot of good points.

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:03:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

<snip>
> Sounds like a nice car. I always liked them except for the front end
> shake we could never get rid of. We only had the 287 engine and it was
> quite peppy. It's a shame AMC went out of business, there cars had a
> lot of good points.

It is a nice bodied car. Bench seats, vent windows, gearshift on the
column, very nice seats. It is just the lousy ride! Short of replacing
everything again, including softer springs, etc. this car is not going to
ride any better. Someone who has three AMC cars, including an old
Rambler SC and a 50's Rambler and a 71 Ambassador(same car as mine, just
4" longer wheelbase), he said it was the cheap Chinese tires that were
making all my problems. He has radials, real Goodyears, on his, and his
ride smooth.

has your mechanic taken it for a test ride? What is his opinion?

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:54:26 -0800, m6onz5a wrote:

> has your mechanic taken it for a test ride? What is his opinion?

The work was done in FL before we moved. It did pass the TX state
inspection with flying colors, and it involved taking it out on the road
for a short drive.

On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC), sctvguy1
> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:03:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Sounds like a nice car. I always liked them except for the front end
>> shake we could never get rid of. We only had the 287 engine and it was
>> quite peppy. It's a shame AMC went out of business, there cars had a
>> lot of good points.
>
>It is a nice bodied car. Bench seats, vent windows, gearshift on the
>column, very nice seats. It is just the lousy ride! Short of replacing
>everything again, including softer springs, etc. this car is not going to
>ride any better. Someone who has three AMC cars, including an old
>Rambler SC and a 50's Rambler and a 71 Ambassador(same car as mine, just
>4" longer wheelbase), he said it was the cheap Chinese tires that were
>making all my problems. He has radials, real Goodyears, on his, and his
>ride smooth.

Switch tires with him for a few hours and see how the ride is.

On 1 Jan 2014 08:31:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>sctvguy1 > wrote:
>>On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:02:09 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> And this, in short, is why the Japanese car industry totally clobbered
>>> us.
>>
>>I believe that the Japanese and Koreans made cars more like the US
>>industry "used" to make: cars that were sized correctly, engines that got
>>good gasoline mileage and plenty of room inside. Of course, now the
>>Asians are starting to have the same problems that developed with Detroit
>>products: crappy styling, cramped interiors and too many electrical
>>options that go "south" too often.
>
>When the Japanese first came into the US car industry in the sixties,
>the cars they were selling were just terrible. They had severe rust
>issues, they were tiny and often sized for people much smaller than the
>typical Americans.
>
>But over the course of a decade, the Japanese cars kept getting better
>and better, and at the same time the American cars were getting worse
>and worse. By 1975 the whole notion of quality control seems to have
>totally escaped the Big Three.

Scott, I can't throw any statistics at you but in 1975/76 I was
working for the state. We always used American cars of course and in
the early 70's we had Plymouths. They were good cars overall but
almost every trip resulted in me writing down something that needed
fixing next time it went in for it's 3000 mile oil change - brake
issues, shaking, heater controls, adjust doors, fix window cranks....
But in 1974 we got new Mercury Montegos and in 76 new Chevy malibus.
Those cars were bulletproof, nothing ever went wrong with them. We
also added a hand me down 72 Impala to our area to replace a 70
Plymouth whose power steering had taken on a life of it's own and
become a safety hazard. That 72 Impala was also bulletproof. I used
to drive these things 10,000 miles a month and they were all great
cars. Even the 72 AMC's were basically trouble free, just not quite as
nice overall as the Fords and chevies. I truly think the knock given
to the mid 70's Ford and GM cars was undeserved.

On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:02:37 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2014 08:31:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
>
> >sctvguy1 > wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:02:09 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> And this, in short, is why the Japanese car industry totally clobbered
>
> >>> us.
>
> >>
>
> >>I believe that the Japanese and Koreans made cars more like the US
>
> >>industry "used" to make: cars that were sized correctly, engines that got
>
> >>good gasoline mileage and plenty of room inside. Of course, now the
>
> >>Asians are starting to have the same problems that developed with Detroit
>
> >>products: crappy styling, cramped interiors and too many electrical
>
> >>options that go "south" too often.
>
> >
>
> >When the Japanese first came into the US car industry in the sixties,
>
> >the cars they were selling were just terrible. They had severe rust
>
> >issues, they were tiny and often sized for people much smaller than the
>
> >typical Americans.
>
> >
>
> >But over the course of a decade, the Japanese cars kept getting better
>
> >and better, and at the same time the American cars were getting worse
>
> >and worse. By 1975 the whole notion of quality control seems to have
>
> >totally escaped the Big Three.
>
>
>
> Scott, I can't throw any statistics at you but in 1975/76 I was
>
> working for the state. We always used American cars of course and in
>
> the early 70's we had Plymouths. They were good cars overall but
>
> almost every trip resulted in me writing down something that needed
>
> fixing next time it went in for it's 3000 mile oil change - brake
>
> issues, shaking, heater controls, adjust doors, fix window cranks....
>
> But in 1974 we got new Mercury Montegos and in 76 new Chevy malibus.
>
> Those cars were bulletproof, nothing ever went wrong with them. We
>
> also added a hand me down 72 Impala to our area to replace a 70
>
> Plymouth whose power steering had taken on a life of it's own and
>
> become a safety hazard. That 72 Impala was also bulletproof. I used
>
> to drive these things 10,000 miles a month and they were all great
>
> cars. Even the 72 AMC's were basically trouble free, just not quite as
>
> nice overall as the Fords and chevies. I truly think the knock given
>
> to the mid 70's Ford and GM cars was undeserved.

Parents owned a '73 Lemans. With proper oil changes etc. the motor died at 98k. Rear quarter panels were rusted out too.