High miles on older vehicles

[fdcg27]

Quality cars of that era would easily last that long mechanically, although they were often terrifically rust prone.
Think of MB and BMW cars of that time.
The Fords/Chevys/Buicks/Mercurys driven by the hoi polloi were in many ways mechanically more robust than are the cars of today, particularly the automatic transmissions.
They were let down by carburetors with poorly implemented early emissions controls, leaded fuel and weak points and coil ignition systems that required regular attention.
The motor oils of the time were also not up to much by current standards.
Most of these cars were also utterly lacking in any design or manufactured corrosion resistance and would make the known rusters of today appear to be exemplary in that respect.
Those engines designs that survived long enough to make the transition to unleaded fuel, PFI, electronic ignition and better oils proved to be as robust as anything out there.
Think of a typical modern car time-warped back to 1970. How well would it run and for how long on the fuels and oils then available?

 

[JeffKeryk]

Most GM 2 speed automatic transmissions required rebuilds by 60K, especially with high torque engines and heavy cars. Bias ply tires added drag unlike the wonderful radials of today.
Ford and Chrysler transmissions were stronger overall.
With regular service, you could get 90K outta many V8's, especially Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles with their bullet proof bottom ends.
Remember, gasket technology has come a long way. All the old engines leaked. If it didn't leak that just meant it had no oil.
The Slant 6 was the 1st of the long runners.

Our 65 Oldsey is still going strong. Except the 2 speed Junk-A-Way...

 

[jeepman3071]

Older vehicles died from wearing out and rusting out. Newer vehicles often die from electronics and complex repairs exceeding the value of the vehicle.

In the old days an engine may have only lasted 100k miles, but it could also be replaced in a couple hours with about 10 bolts.

I like the character of older vehicles, but I also wouldn't want to be in an accident in one or drive cross country.

 

[AZjeff]

Originally Posted by MajorCavalry

Changed the oil every 2k miles with Quaker State 10w30 and a K Mart filter. Never changed the transmission fluid. Tuned it up every 12k with spark plugs, points, condenser and timing. Car was trouble free except it went through lots of mufflers and needed a carburetor rebuild. Burned about a quart per 1k miles all the time I owned it.


Your description is not what I'd call trouble free....

 

[Dinoburner]

Back in the 50s a car was said to have gone around the world 3 times at 90,000 miles. Now it could mean 300,000 miles.

 

[aquariuscsm]

It always seemed like 100,000 miles was the benchmark on older cars (70s carbureted cars).

 

[marc1]

Originally Posted by ecotourist
So I'd be interested in anyone who has personally put high miles on an earlier vehicle, lets say model year 1970 or earlier.


1) My father's 1970 Buick LeSabre (bought new in 70) had 160,000 miles on it when I inherited it after he passed away in the early 00's. Nothing beyond routine work or reasonable maintenance (a water pump etc.) was done on it. It was tired and old though, he looked after it so I think 150 / 160 thousand was probably best case mileage you could get with that car. I started to worry about getting home with it near the end and it needed 20w-50 to keep the oil light out at idle... classic Buick oil pump issue (the gears are built into an aluminum timing cover... wears out early).

2) My first car was a 1970 Pontiac LeMans Sport, it had 93,000 miles on it when I bought it, I drove it to about 140,000 (trips to California, daily use etc.). It went through everything (new motor, new THM350) except the differential but that was likely all my fault (just a kid driving it hard).

3) My next car (just out of high school) was a 1968 Buick GS400. I bought it with 43,000 on it and I sold it at 114,000. It was my daily driver (some winter's were -35F or worse), University car when I missed the bus, race track car (made it to the quarter finals Division 6 NHRA in that car one year) and yearly holiday car with my (now) wife. Again, just a kid, so I went through everything on that car. I damaged the bottom end trying to break the sound barrier (car was geared 3.64:1), stretched most of the rods and my best friend had to come tow me home. I damaged the rear end doing 4 alarm fire burnouts (bye bye spiders), my Dad towed me home on that one. The THM400 survived the entire time a testament to that transmission's strength. I have had a lot of nice muscle cars in my life (Ram Air IV GTO, LS6 Chevelle… yeah those kinds of muscle cars... all the real deals) but this Buick was my favorite.

4) In here as well, later on in life, was a 68 GTO, ran it to 86,000 miles, all original, did not blow anything up (I was an adult by now). It was tired at the end too... although it was never wrecked, the car was still likely driven hard in its life... so... 86,000 was about the end of the road and the motor would need freshening up to carry on for another 100,000.

My Ram Air IV GTO and LS6 Chevelle were bought later on in life long after these cars became collectable and were not driven daily anymore, they were special cars by then so useless data points for this post. For interest they had about 40,000 and 43,000 original miles on them respectively.

Looking to get back to my Buick GS roots now, as of 3 weeks ago, I am currently between muscle cars.

 

[ecotourist]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
It always seemed like 100,000 miles was the benchmark on older cars (70s carbureted cars).

Agreed. If a car in those days made 100,000 miles it had served you well. By then it was usually pretty much worn out.

So today we have many vehicles that will go 300,000 - 500,000 miles with not much more than regular maintenance, resist corrosion at least fairly well, handle better, brake better, blow the doors off pretty much anything from the pre 1970 era, get better fuel economy, in greater safety, and with better ride comfort.

So why aren't we lining up to buy Mustangs, Impalas and Chrysler 300s?

 

[Revving2Redline]

My dad had a 83 Cutless with 240,000 he drove. Used Pennzoil 10w30 q 3k miles.

 

[CR94]

The earliest cars I knew to make it beyond 100k without major issues were early-50s flat-head Chrysler sixes (which preceded the OHV Slant Sixes) and mid-50s Chevy V8s. My parents' (later my) '54 Chevy Stove-bolt six needed rings by ~70k, probably largely due to questionable air filtration, unfortunately combined with our living on dusty rural roads. Oil back then needed to be changed more often, but as long as it was, I don't believe oil quality vs. modern oil was as big a factor limiting engine life generally in the old days as air filtration.

1960s and early 70s V8s often seemed to fail early due to timing chain and (plastic) sprocket issues, even if well-maintained and otherwise in good condition. My friend's '65 Ford 289 and '70 Dart 318 both suffered that fate at around 100k. Some Pontiacs were even worse. From what I've read on BITOG, short-lived timing drive systems haven't become extinct.

My '72 Subaru (below) had major rust issues within 3 years, and evidence of worn rings by 150k, although it still ran well at 190k with no major repairs except the rust.

By comparison, my '81 Mazda easily breezed past 100k, 200k, and 300k with no major engine issues, thanks to unleaded fuel, electronic ignition, better air filtration, functional PCV system, well-designed camshaft drive, etc.

 

[csandste]

Bought a new '69 Fiat 124. A couple of years later it was driving me crazy with repairs at about 30,000 miles. Asked the service manager if others had the same problems and he said "Don't know, no one's ever kept one that long."

 

[NYEngineer]

We had a Ford E150 van at my shop years ago with a 300 inch six in it that went over 300,000 without ever removing the head or oil pan. I'm still amazed by that one.

My uncle had a white 68 Volvo four door that he bought new and put a ton of mileage on before selling it to a neighbor. Last I heard they still had it and it had some ungodly amount of miles on it.

Not the same but my 2009 Suburban has 170,000 miles in it. No major repairs as of yet.

 

[BigD1]

Originally Posted by jeepman3071
Older vehicles died from wearing out and rusting out. Newer vehicles often die from electronics and complex repairs exceeding the value of the vehicle.

In the old days an engine may have only lasted 100k miles, but it could also be replaced in a couple hours with about 10 bolts.

I like the character of older vehicles, but I also wouldn't want to be in an accident in one or drive cross country.


Spot on!

After my son was in a head on collision at 50 mph with another car that came in his lane, all those air bags went off side curtains too, and he ended up with a severe bruise on his side, and three broken back bones. The 2013 Hyundai Sonata literally saved his life. The firewall did not get pushed back either. The driver of the 2005 Saturn died a few days later from severe head trauma, and they had to use the jaws of life to get her out.

On the other hand, a check engine light nowadays can send a car to the junkyard because they cost too much to fix.

 

[addyguy]

My dad bought a 1967 Ford Mustang in 1970 w/9k miles on it, babied teachers car. Had a 289 and automatic.

Drove it about 18k miles/year from 1970 to 1978, so it had about 150-160k miles on it at the end. He certainly didn't drive it 'easy' - it saw high-speed runs, burnouts..etc..

I don't know what his maintenance habits were on it, but according to my mom it ran perfectly until the end, no engine or transmission problems that she remembers.

Rust is what did it in - it completely rotted out so there was no floor/subframe/mounts left on it. My dad gave it to our mailman to help him restore a '68; and it was difficult for them to tow it away bc the car was threatening to come apart.

 

[AZjeff]

My dad put 50-60k a year on from late 60s til he retired in 1990. GM or Ford midsize, even had one of those Bonneville 350 diesels in there around 1980. Traded every 2 years with 100-120K miles. No failures of any kind and he ran house brand, Eastern States then Agway oil, straight 30 early on then a multi-vis I don't remember on 5k OCIs. He changed his own oil in the driveway, a lot looking back.

 

[red7404]

years ago 1968. i know an old man RED. that said the good days remember well but didnt live to good

 

[Malo83]

A lot of you young lads are living the Good Old Days right now.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted by HangFire


In the mid 80's the family's late-70's Ford Fairmont needed a transmission rebuild before 100K miles... same C-4 they had always used, gently used and well maintained... which just shows how bad Ford quality had fallen down during the 70's. They couldn't even make their old stuff as well. An early Ford Escort needed everything replaced all the time over 80K miles.

The Fox platform definitely had a rough start. It got a lot better in the mid 80s, but the first cars had tons of issues. My parents bought a 1978 Mercury Zephyr new. It was supposed to be their first "nice" car with AC and modernish design, but it had constant problems from the time it was new, mostly carburetor related. It had a stalling problem that was never resolved and they traded it in 1984 on a Cherokee, after the shortest ownership of anything they bought new. My parents hated that car more than any they owned before or since...and they liked the car's design and features, they just couldn't trust it at all when it would stall at any time.

That said, a lot of cars still have pretty major issues these days, but QC and warranties are better. It usually doesn't burn the owner quite as bad as it used to.

 

[ecotourist]

Originally Posted by NYEngineer
We had a Ford E150 van at my shop years ago with a 300 inch six in it that went over 300,000 without ever removing the head or oil pan. I'm still amazed by that one.

What year was it? I've heard that the Ford 300 CID I6 was another great engine.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted by 01rangerxl
The Fox platform definitely had a rough start. It got a lot better in the mid 80s, but the first cars had tons of issues. My parents bought a 1978 Mercury Zephyr new. It was supposed to be their first "nice" car with AC and modernish design, but it had constant problems from the time it was new, mostly carburetor related.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder... it had carb problems, too. I think it was also a 78, but it's been too long to remember for sure.