Diesel and Other Exhaust Fumes

At a time when my sniffer isn't working as well as it did when I was younger, I seem to be more sensitive to Diesel and other exhaust fumes. I really notice this more this time of year when I'm driving in my car with the heater on. If I get behind a Diesel pickup, the heater intake is apt to suck up some of those exhaust fumes and route them right into the passenger compartment. During warmer weather, I can roll up the windows and escape from most of these fumes. I try to avoid driving behind Diesel-powered pickups and the few cars that are around; the big rigs don't seem to bother me as much but maybe that's because their exhaust stacks are often routed up higher.

I've never owned a Diesel-powered personal vehicle and likely never will. I understand that they deliver better fuel economy than gasoline and produce more torque but these attributes do not interest me. I'm turned away from them primarily because they are noisey and smokey. They tend to last a long time, but from the people I've known who've had them, when something does go wrong the repair bill can be many times that for repairs made to a gasoline engine.

Then there is the subject of driver technique. With big rigs, there isn't much issue with excessive accelleration, but with smaller Diesel-powered rigs there can be. Hot dog drivers with a Diesel are just as apt to tromp on the throttle as they would in a gasoline-powered car, which of course creates an even greater burst of smoke. As I understand it, the fuel economy of a Diesel is optimal (even moreso that with a gas engine) with even, gradual accelleration.

Be prepared for an increasing number of Diesel-powered personal vehicles in the future. The US government likes the idea because of the increase in fuel economy (even if Diesel often costs a little more).

I wonder how all the "Green attitude" in Europe squares with their much wider use of light vehicles powered by Diesel. A great many smaller cars there have Diesel engines. When you're in the city, those streets can be like canyons, with breezes blocked off and no relief from the clouds of Diesel smoke.

My other complaint about fumes comes from old Ford trucks that have outlived their time. These would be gas-powered, older F-100's, F-150's, and F-250's. Whenever I see one of these ahead of me on the road, I groan inwardly and know that I am about to be treated to a big, long sniff of semi-burned raw gasoline fumes. Rarely am I disappointed. These old Ford pickups with carburetors just seem to have lasted longer than anyone ever anticipated. They mostly have FE series engines; big, heavy, gas-guzzler V-8's that by now have worn-out carburetors, all kinds of crankcase blow-by, and in general, are quite tired. But they keep running so the owners "cling to them" (sound familiar?). In this region anyway, by far and away, Ford sold the most pickups in decades past, so the original numbers of Chevrolet (and GMC) and especially Dodge were smaller. Given the greater propensity for rust, the GM products didn't last as long regardless of how good the engines might be. So it's the old Ford pickups that drive me nuts with fumes.

It's funny that the Ford pickups would be so long-lived, as the heavier trucks in their product line have tended to have presented the opposite experience. Professional operators that I've known have not particularly liked heavier Ford trucks, to include C-600's, C-750's and the conventional cab types in comparable weights. Forget about over-the-road trucks; Ford gave up trying to make and sell those some time ago.

The State of Ford Car Quality

I've been a Ford guy all my life. I've come to appreciate that, in spite of their complexity, the newest cars are the very best ever made. It's ironic that the best cars from Detroit come at a time when the economy is in the dumper, but that's life.

We had many flatheads when I was growing up, Fords ('35, '36x3, '40, '50), Mercury, ('40), and Lincoln ('36, '37, '39, '41x several, '42x 2, '46) and Ford trucks (36, 44, 47). When I hear the phrase, "Flatheads Forever" it makes me laugh. Flatheads are the reason that overheads were invented. A guy comes up and slaps the fender on the '40 Ford, "Now that's real metal; they don't make them like they used to" which of course is true, because they don't have to. Metallurgy has improved over the years so that the don't have to make stampings out of that old, soft, thick stuff. And those heavy castings that look so robust? They are thick because that's the only way they could make them strong yet inexpensive in those days. Drop one on the floor and it's history.

Ah, then the first overheads came along in the early 1950's. First, an inline six in 1952 (burned as much fuel as a V-eight). Then the Y-block in 1954. A wonderful improvement over the flathead, they went through cam bearings pretty fast then next the rocker assemblies. The bodies on the Fords of the '50's were fairly fragile, cheap steel that rusted very quickly. Front suspensions on Fords blew out pretty fast with heavy service. The lovely 6 volt electrical system finally went away in 1955.

Next, the 1960's started out with lots of cheapie designs inspired by Robert McNamara except for a few like the Lincoln, and this successful design was scabbed off of a project initially designed for T-bird. By some chance of fate, McNamara's penny-pinching by combining two engineering processes resulted in two pretty good cars. Once McNamara left, they could get to building decent cars and the mid to late 1960's are a kind of golden era, but there were lots of gas hogs and much cheap sheet metal. Small block V-eight engine development was something you can point to as a success story.

Next, much of the '70's was a lost decade of mostly poorly-fit and made cars in general, lots of kitschy styling in line with all the other bad taste of the era (hair, clothes). Oddly enough, some of the less expensive lines and models looked better than the loaded-up ones. No fault of the manufacturer, the onerous burden of emissions controls dragged down the performance of these cars. They spent most of the decade continuing to make gas-hogs when the writing was on the wall about fuel price and availability. Really poor sheet metal.

The '80's was a decade to mostly forget, with a few exceptions. Lots of shoddy, drive until they break down and throw away models. Lots of bogus engineering used in an attempt to bridge the old with the new, all at the expense of the consumer. Redesigned T-Bird of 1983 one kind-off exception. Emission considerations begin the use of computers. You won't see many of these for sale in Hemming's Motor News in 15 or 20 years. It was during this time that they finally started making the car bodies in ways so that they didn't melt away after a few winters.

Things were looking up in the '90's, when Ford started to take quality control seriously. It only took 20 years to wake up to the inroads that Japanese cars are making into market share. Computerized engine controls become pretty much "perfected" (if there is such a thing as perfection), and turn out to be of significant benefit in increased fuel mileage.

So, by the early 21st Century, you can finally get a pretty well-made, nicely styled Ford product that will last a long time with very little maintenance. Bringing this back down to earth is the realization that some of the increases in quality come as a response to keep lawyers at bay -- make them better in the first place, and you won't be in court as often. Forget about working on it much yourself, but that's been the case for a while. The good thing is, that they are made well enough that they don't need much attention outside of routine maintenance for quite a while. But when they do, hold on to your wallet.

Now I'm not being critical of just Ford, because many of these comments apply to the other US manufacturers. One other thing, I think that some of the best GM and Chrysler products ever offered are being sold new right now. They have to build a product that people will buy. No longer will people buy any old thing they make.

We do have an excuse for buying all of those old cars when they were new -- we didn't know any better.

My 2004 Ford Crown Victoria

This is a picture of my Ford Crown Victoria at the Madeline Plain south of Alturas, CA.


Crooked River high bridge on US Highway 97 in central Oregon. This bridge was built in 1926 and spans an 850 foot deep gorge.


Tree along US Highway 395 at Sage Hen Pass in northern California.


US Highway 97 sign in central Oregon.


US Highway 395 sign in Alturas, CA.


Recently, I returned from a trip to Reno, NV. I drove my 2004 Ford Crown Victoria on this trip. I know what kind of fuel economy this car gets, but I like to clock the mileage from time to time just to keep my eye on it. On the return trip, I drove 479 miles between fuel stops. The amount of fuel used to drive these miles was 16.49 gallons. 479 divided by 16.49 equals 29.05 miles per gallon. The car is equipped with the 4.6 liter OHC V-8 engine and automatic overdrive. The route travelled was from Reno, NV via US 395, CA 299, CA 139, OR 39, US 97, OR 58 to Goshen, OR. No interstate highway miles were driven on this segment of the trip. Although most of it was open road driving, slow-downs were required in many towns where lower speed limits along the highways prevailed. The speed on the open highway varied between 55 and 70 mph. I used the speed/cruise control wherever possible, usually set around 60-65. Even throttle pressure maximizes fuel economy and using the speed control facilitates this. The specifications for this car call for the use of 5W-20 oil, and this reduces engine friction. I've commonly gotten 27-28 mpg with this car in highway driving, but this is the first time I've broken the 29 mpg barrier. Fuel consumption in around-town driving is lower, in the range of 17-20 mpg. Most people look at this car and think, "Gas Hog". It's deceptive.

I've talked to the service writer at the dealer where I have my car serviced, and he says that the mileage I get is typical of the 2003 and up Crown Vic and Merc Grand Marquis. He also agreed that the car is kind of a "sleeper" in that people do not expect that kind of mileage out of such a car.

The rear axle ratio on this car is 2.73 and when the automatic overdrive is in 4th gear, the final drive ratio is .70. When you lock out the AOD, or it kicks down, the third gear is running one-to-one. The police and performance versions of this car have quicker rear axles, mostly 3.27 and some 3.55, so of course cars so equipped don't get as good of mileage but they accellerate faster. My car has all the accelleration that it needs for my purposes.

Many old timers and back-yard mechanics hate "computer cars". However, having fairly complex computerized controls on automobile engines causes them to operate much more precisely and efficiently that older systems.

My first car was big, old 1957 Lincoln. That was in 1966 and gasoline cost around 26 to 30 cents a gallon. I didn't pay much attention to the fuel economy of that car, but I do remember buying the cheapest fuel I could find. I used to drive this car to the desert with my high school friends, and the trip to where we used to go was about 140 miles each way. The fuel tank held 20 gallons, and if I was real careful, I could make the round trip of close to 300 miles. Sometimes it was very close, and I used to worry enough that I would fill it before I got home. I dreamed of having a car that had an easy range of 300 miles on one tank of fuel. My 2004 Crown Victoria has a 19 gallon tank. Recently, after driving 479 miles, the car still had about 2-1/2 gallons remaining. I've driven 500 miles on a tank of gas before with it, but the low fuel light comes on at about 475 miles and even though it still has more than two gallons left, the light being on makes me nervous. It's nice to have that 500 mile range when you are out on the road, crossing desolate stretches of road. There are a lot of those in the west, and they're my favorite roads.