Pretty sure you could fix anything on a Trabi with horse glue and a spanner.
Pretty sure you could fix anything on a Trabi with horse glue and a spanner.
1970s Jag, or as Jeremy Clarkson says, Jaaaaaaaag.
snap_understeer wrote: 1970s Jag, or as Jeremy Clarkson says, Jaaaaaaaag.
the words "simple" and "Jag" should never be in the same sentence. Unless you meant to say that your Jag drove you simply insane.
mad_machine wrote:snap_understeer wrote: 1970s Jag, or as Jeremy Clarkson says, Jaaaaaaaag.the words "simple" and "Jag" should never be in the same sentence. Unless you meant to say that your Jag drove you simply insane.
No kidding and this coming from a Jag lover.
93EXCivic wrote:mad_machine wrote:No kidding and this coming from a Jag lover.snap_understeer wrote: 1970s Jag, or as Jeremy Clarkson says, Jaaaaaaaag.the words "simple" and "Jag" should never be in the same sentence. Unless you meant to say that your Jag drove you simply insane.
I think he is completely correct. '70s Jag with an '80s BiTurbo in second place.
ShadowSix wrote: It's hard to beat the Beetle, think of all the stuff that is doesn't have that a Ford Falcon of the same era did have: water pump, radiator hoses, radiator, driveshaft, etc.
While instead being equipped with a bunch of shroudings, two heads, external push rod tubes, a swing axle suspension, etc.
I've lived with both, worked on both. The Falcon is far simpler, at least imo.
Otto Maddox wrote:93EXCivic wrote:I think he is completely correct. '70s Jag with an '80s BiTurbo in second place.mad_machine wrote:No kidding and this coming from a Jag lover.snap_understeer wrote: 1970s Jag, or as Jeremy Clarkson says, Jaaaaaaaag.the words "simple" and "Jag" should never be in the same sentence. Unless you meant to say that your Jag drove you simply insane.
You owe me a keyboard. Obviously the first poster of this series of quotes has never looked under the hood of a V12 Jag.
foxtrapper wrote: I've lived with both, worked on both. The Falcon is far simpler, at least imo.
If the criteria is post 1960 US cars, I would agree the Falcon is about is simple as they come. Fairly bulletproof as well.
I still stand by the beetle over the falcon, but what about the Subaru 360? Aircooled 2 stroke 2 cylinder with a 3 speed manual trans.
A Suzuki SJ or LJ is simple enough! Or the HopeStar ON360.
The Samurai was about as rudimentary as you could find. The American market had one until 1995.
In 1990 it was still carbed. '91+ got FI.
silly boys......... Irv's been sitting in his for nearly 50 years now....
Volvo P1800, earlier the better for simple. I'm pretty sure the 60-62 models were single carb, single downpipe.
They all had disc brakes up front... and full belts as well. they can get 35 mpg (I know cause I got that much) and they have no computers, and if memory serves me all of 8 fuses
Don't want the sports car... then go for either the 122. The PV544 is also lurking there as well... but disc brakes and 5 main bearings are things I prefer
Has somebody said 12V Cummins Dodge yet? Must not have, if this thread is still going.
I think most of you are crazy if you're calling post-WW2 "modern" for automobiles. Modern is less than 20-30 years old (I'd lean towards 30).
e30. I consider "modern" to be from the '80s on....
Osterkraut wrote: Has somebody said 12V Cummins Dodge yet? Must not have, if this thread is still going.
Hmmmm, I like this one. If you got a stripped one with crank windows, no power steering, no power brakes, just an am/fm or no radio, no a/c, no cruise control, all analog gauges etc. I'd agree.
ebonyandivory wrote:Osterkraut wrote: Has somebody said 12V Cummins Dodge yet? Must not have, if this thread is still going.Hmmmm, I like this one. If you got a stripped one with crank windows, no power steering, no power brakes, just an am/fm or no radio, no a/c, no cruise control, all analog gauges etc. I'd agree.
I dunno if I'd consider power brakes to be a defining part of "modern." You're talking about an invention that was pretty widespread shortly after WW2.
Osterkraut wrote: I dunno if I'd consider power brakes to be a defining part of "modern." You're talking about an invention that was pretty widespread shortly after WW2.
Not that I disagree with you but we're talking about simplest/least complex. I guess my point with the Suzuki Samurai especially until 1990 (prior to FI) is the sheer lack of "systems". There's a pump, belt, pulley, hoses and fluid that the Dodge will have that the Samurai does not.
EDIT: I meant to write master cylinder and associated parts. I was thinking power steering in my above example.
ebonyandivory wrote:Osterkraut wrote: I dunno if I'd consider power brakes to be a defining part of "modern." You're talking about an invention that was pretty widespread shortly after WW2.Not that I disagree with you but we're talking about simplest/least complex. I guess my point with the Suzuki Samurai especially until 1990 (prior to FI) is the sheer lack of "systems". There's a pump, belt, pulley, hoses and fluid that the Dodge will have that the Samurai does not.
Suzuki Samurai has vacuum-assisted power brakes.
Granted as a diesel, the 6BT needs a pump to pull vacuum for brakes, but your Samurai's ignition system complexity more than makes up for that.
"modern"
z car. or a phaeton. lol=]
I'd still have to say that on the whole, if you take apart every piece on a 6BT Dodge 3/4 ton (or similar) and did the same with the Suzuki Samurai both 1990 model years, the Samurai wins on simplicity and fewer parts.
I think it'd rate as the most simple and modern vehicle.
Hands-down: Chevy Cruze.
ebonyandivory wrote: I'd still have to say that on the whole, if you take apart every piece on a 6BT Dodge 3/4 ton (or similar) and did the Suzuki Samurai both 1990 model tears, the Samurai wins on simplicity and fewer parts.
I'm sorry, but unless the Samurai uses points, it's infinitely more complex than the 6BT and wrapper. After a nuclear detonation, the 12V is going to start. The Samurai will not, it's far more complex.
In reply to Osterkraut:
I'm not sure EMP resistance is the best metric of simplicity...
ShadowSix wrote: In reply to Osterkraut: I'm not sure EMP resistance is the best metric of simplicity...
It's a good demonstration of if a vehicle requires a computer to run or not. And baring something crazy complex, not having a computer to deal with is going to be simpler. You can't fix a code with a hammer.
How about a Lada Niva? They had carbs until the mid 90s and you could hand crank them if needed (even with the later fuel injection).
Osterkraut wrote: I'm sorry, but unless the Samurai uses points, it's infinitely more complex than the 6BT and wrapper. After a nuclear detonation, the 12V is going to start. The Samurai will not, it's far more complex.
Does it count that the carbed models are vacuum advance points ignitions? I may be wrong here, it's been a while.
You'll need to log in to post.
