Things I don't miss on vehicles

[85_Ranger4x4]

in the late 80s and early 90s GM had a seat belt system that would allow you to get in and out of the car without unfastening the seatbelt. both lap and shoulder. the catch was, that the seatbelt was mounted in the actual door, not the B pillar. so the door opened and you could slide in under the belt, close the door and you were belted in. So you can see where this ended up, severe crashes that would allow the door to fly open basically yeeted the belted in driver out of the car as if he were not belted in. I had a 1988 Olds Delta 88 with this system, and it was awkward, so i always belted in and out like normal, and made sure the doors were locked when traveling.

My uncle was side swiped by a semi truck and it removed the front drivers side wheel, fender and door from his F-150

Granted he didn't make it (didn't have a seatbelt on at all) but having the door you are strapped to being removed from the vehicle in an accident would be less than ideal...

 

[Shran]

I don't mind carburetors, REAR drum brakes, or R134a at all.

I don't miss factory radios that were always different sizes and you had to hack an ugly hole into the dash to make a single DIN one fit.

I also don't miss swingset throttle/shifter/clutch linkages that bind up if the body mounts sag or something gets a little out of whack.

Oh, 70's import interior trim/plastic pieces is high up on my list too. It's been more than two decades since I parted with my Datsun and I can still feel that crumbly crap on my fingers.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yeah, my F-150 IIRC was the last year to have R134A... and I like that.

 

[Roert42]

I'd be happy to pump the gas to start my Escape- like I do on my Ranger and Mustang- if it meant that the 2-3 second hesitation when I stab the gas caused by the drive-by-wire throttle was gone.

It’s called a feature. Allows the engineers to make sure you are using the car right.

 

[RCC]

Know what you mean 4x4junkie.
Can't stand drum brakes anymore.
Unable to not miss something my 96 ranger still has on back axle...

 

[4x4junkie]

Why the hate on R134a? it wasn't horrible, and i was able to buy 12 oz cans for 5 bucks several years ago. Much better than the new R1234yf garbage in cars now.

AJ

Why do you say that? (first time I've heard anyone say bad about R-1234yf other than its cost... R-134a OTOH, I keep hearing about it incessantly)

R-134a has very small sized molecules... Because of this it tends to permeate through rubber hoses & seals at a much faster rate than R-1234yf (and also R-12 for that matter). This is why it was recommended to replace the hoses with what were known as "barrier hoses" back in the day when doing R-12 to 134a conversions.

This has shown itself in every vehicle I've owned or been around that had 134a (the conversion on my BII included), not one of them ever stayed as cold after 2-3 years as it was when it was new.
On my BII page is a pic of a thermometer stuck in the vent showing 38°F... That lasted maybe a year. It then drifted up to around 45° under the same conditions, and finally to around 50° (topping off the system with more 134a got it back down to 45 or so, but 38° was something never to be had again).

My 1994 Ranger (among the first to have 134a from the factory) and a 2018 Subaru Forester (among the last to have it)... Same thing, both froze your ass off when they were new... Several years later, again not so much (cool, just not cold... and also struggling a bit while stopped or in bumper-bumper traffic). My Ranger needed top-offs as well, surely the Subaru could use one too.

However a 2018 Toyota Tacoma (same age as the Subaru), and 2020 Camry (both with R-1234yf), both of these will still freeze you out of the cabin to this day (and no struggles when stopped/going slow).
That is certainly a win in my book... R-134a is just a PITA if you ask me.


I need to redo the A/C again on my BII... R-1234yf is what I plan to use for it (especially now that it's getting cheaper as it's production has increased).

 

[bobbywalter]

but....i like hand crank start....

 

[racsan]

Im out if the loop, Thought 134-A was the currently used refrigerant. I remember R-12. lol

 

[97RangerXLT]

R-134a has very small sized molecules... Because of this it tends to permeate through rubber hoses & seals at a much faster rate than R-1234yf (and also R-12 for that matter). This is why it was recommended to replace the hoses with what were known as "barrier hoses" back in the day when doing R-12 to 134a conversions.

That makes sense. Also, i live in central Indiana where it only gets hot (above 90 or 95 degrees) for maybe 6 weeks out of the year, and no need for a/c for probably 6 months other than defrost. since refrigerant vent temp is related to outside temp which also affects the pressure of the lines, I can see where the smaller molecule and non barrier hoses can really make a difference in places where you run the a/c year round.

pretty much all of my R134a vehicles put out cold a/c until I got rid of them (usually over 20 years old and 200k miles) with the exception of my Ranger and a 94 Intrepid which had a garbage evaporator from the factory. but again, the weather is a bit cooler here.

I have heard a lot of stuff on 1234yf having issues with leaking, my edge has it but so far it has been pretty solid a/c wise. pricingwise, I think HF had 134a for 12 bucks a 12 oz can and 1234yf for about 50 a few weeks ago, so I would say on an older system, it might still be more cost effective to top off with 134a every year. but if I redo the Rangers a/c again (needs an evap) I might consider 1234yf.

AJ

 

[97RangerXLT]

but....i like hand crank start....

get you a 1968 Citroen DS

AJ

 

[superj]

Propane molecules are similar to r12 so you can still keep the good older system in place and just use propane as the refrigerant. It gets ice cold too and is still cheap to buy at Walmart in those little green canisters.

Thats what I use in older vehicles the wer originally r12. Works great