There’s a prolific mistruth that has been spread far and wide. I’ve read it in magazines, on automotive blogs, I’ve even read it in university text books. The legend goes the Chevrolet Nova sold poorly in Latin America because “nova” means “no go”. Snopes’ article on this urban legend details the various reasons that is, to put it lightly, a crock; nova and “no va” are pronounced differently, for example, and Spanish speakers would generally say a car “no marcha” or “no funciona” anyway. The way I explain it is simple: as an English speaker, are you terrified of visiting a therapist because you fear, based on their job title, you will be sexually assaulted? If there’s any urban legend that gets under my skin, it’s this one. Seriously, Google “Chevy Nova” and “Latin America” and look at all the identical, spurious claims. Also, as Snopes notes, the Nova actually sold well in Mexico and Venezuela.
Tell me: are there any automotive urban legends, myths, falsehoods, or misconceptions you would like to clear up?
“Manufacturers are required by law to keep parts in production for 10 years after discontinuing a car”. I’ve heard this nugget since the 60s. It’s not true and never was true. [Emissions parts are a different story as they have longer warranties in general].
Even on the federal website that has a pdf of laws applying to automobile manufacturing, there is no reference to a 10 year rule.
That a pillared sedan or coupe or wagon is a “post”. There was never a “post” anything sold only two and four door door sedans, coupes and wagons. Those vehicles without a B-Pillar are hardtops [fixed rear window or not] .
That short rear wheel openings are “skirted” fenders. Only a fender with a detachable skirt has a skirted fender. Nashes and others had an envelope body with enclosed front and rear wheel wells. They had no “permanent skirts” as referred to on Wikipedia.
Maybe it’s just me, but using the proper terminology when discussing something seems pretty important from an informational standpoint.
Using synthetic oil on an older car will cause oil leaks: debatable.
You don’t really need to have a thermostat in your car.
In the 70s: Putting radials on a car not designed for them will destroy the front end. They have done amazing things to to ride and handling on my 63 Valiant over the past 25 years. Any suspension problems I have had have been age and mileage related.
The old widow selling her husband’s unicorn [fill in the blank: Corvette, Hemi, etc. ] for $1000 “and when I went to look at it, she’d sold it”.
My favorites are the fish stories about how “I went into the dealer and made them cry and they lost their shirts one me..etc etc etc”… Forgetting the fact that the salespeople do this everyday and a good one will make the fish story teller feel like he just made the deal of a lifetime, while the dealer laughs all the way to the bank.
People forget there’s an entire system at work in the business operating daily vs the poor slob that walks in every 3-5 years.
I’m sure there are many more.
I have an old Chilton Mercedes-Benz repair book, and it states that radial tires are not recommended for the older swing-axle Mercedes!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Legend: Citroën stopped selling 2CV in Sweeden because it was unsafe.
Fact: They stopped because they had to add headlight wipers/ washers.
It’s often little things like that. One of the final nails in the coffin of the Panther platform was the mandate for all cars to have stability control–it would have been expensive to add and they didn’t want to spend the money on such an old design, even if it was still selling to law enforcement.
That was also what did it for the Ranger.
I despise the forumites who claim that regular oil changes are a scam and that modern synthetic oils can go 20,000 plus miles between changes. They often claim to have some engineering or fleet management backround and say you should send oil samples out for analysis before you change, because the oil will still be “good” and not need to be dumped.
Really? So engine sludging in BMWs and Audis and VWs is just a myth? Have you ever seen the slime that comes out of an engine that has been run without an oil change for too long?
Regular changes are cheap insurance and will prolong engine life, especially in high-performance applications. Why anyone would try to convince someone otherwise is beyond me. Sure 3000 mile changes are excessive on most cars (motorcycles definitely benefit, given most have small sump capacities and high strung engines) but claiming you basically never need to change your oil is ludicrous.
Good synthetic oil may theoretically not break down as easily as older formulations, but the fact remains that oil traps particulates from combustion, heat and friction, and you need to get that crap out of the engine regularly even if the lubricity is still good. Otherwise your cheapness is going to be terminal for the engine in the long run.
I change mine every 5000 kms (3100 mi) because it takes a year to put that on, and it’s 90% short trip (very, as in I can my WP from my 22nd floor apt) & engine cold.
My 2007 SRX with a Northstar V8 required synthetic oil (about 8 quarts) and for mostly highway driving would do 15,000 between changes according to the oil monitor, although I changed at 12,000 mile intervals with about 20% or so of the oil life left.
While the oil does not wear out, the additives that prevent bad things from happening get used up. Oil coats the cylinder walls and some of it burns producing by products. Conventional oil burns with more ash than synthetic and so oil life is reduced for conventional oil even if it is a blend.
Oh Lord, and the Northstar is one of the sloppiest modern engines out there WRT oil contamination. Change it, run the new oil for 30 sec, dark brown again. Take a look at 3000 mile old oil out of a Toyota 1MZ with 200k sometime (that had regular oil changes its whole life) and compare. And keep in mind, at 8000 mile intervals the Northstar oil is probably at least half refreshed due to oil use.
Still, very few engines sound as mechanically elegant as a Northstar firing up. Honda J V6s also have a harmonious starting sound.
My RWD Northstar did not use more than about a half quart between changes. Now my FWD Northstar was another matter. I don’t recall that either one seemed to have dirty oil though.
Yeah, what JEC said! Truly, any and all dumb ol’ “forumites” are worthy of being despised who base their oil change intervals on facts and science and data rather than random numbers, guesses, and assumptions.*
*-“Myth” is a handy single word for these random numbers, guesses, and assumptions you espouse.
An oil monitor that actually monitors how the car is driven, that is to say does it monitor cold vs warm starts, how long the engine is driven and how long it’s at operating temperature before shut down etc etc etc….. is the best thing
GM’s oil monitors do this.
I don’t know that I’d call it the best. It’s certainly more convenient than drawing a sample of oil and sending it in, but doing so gives much finer-grained information on the condition of the oil than even the best of today’s onboard oil-life monitors can provide. I’d say the best and most cost-effective would be enough (real) oil analysis to get a portrait of how a given vehicle/conditions/oil/filter combination holds up and to check the veracity of a good onboard oil-life monitor. If that test is passed, then I’d rely on the oil-life monitor, perhaps adjusted in accord with whatever the results were of the oil analysis.
If you always drive your vehicle exactly the same way, then the oil analysis may tell you how often to change your oil. But if you deviate from what you did when you were getting the oil analysis done, then it’s no longer valid.
My Aurora’s oil monitor would give me a shorter interval in the winter than in the summer, by about 1000 miles. Plus much longer for a long trip.
“Putting your battery on concrete/dirt will cause it to go dead faster”. Maybe true in the days of the Model T with wooden battery cases, but not today. I still know people who put their batteries on pieces of wood because they KNOW it’ll go dead if they don’t.
“Putting sugar in a gas tank will ruin an engine”. Wrong on so many levels. In the 70s R&T did an article on ‘automotive myths’, they put 5 pounds of sugar in a gas tank, drove it around, removed the tank, and found 4.99 pounds of sugar still in the tank. Then they poured 5 pounds of sugar directly into the carb, ran the engine, had it torn down, and there was no wear. As far as personal experience, a girl I knew back in the 80s put a pound of sugar in her ex’s gas tank, the car was still running several years later.
This is probably one of the most long lasting urban myths about cars.
I saw Logan Lucky last night and the old No-Va thing was brought up again. Now even more people will believe that line.
Since we’re talking urban legends….”Elvis gave my aunt her Cadillac when she told him how nice it was”
Is there a genuine market for celebrity owned cars? Undoubtedly. Can 90% of them pass provenance? Doubtful.
The one that bothers me the most by people who practice it, is that you have to leave diesels idling for a long time after driving. Sure, a turbo might like some oil for lubrication and cooling as it spins down. Sure, restarting a big Cummins or Cat at 20 below zero if it sits overnight may be a challenge. But to all the yahoo’s who,leave their 3/4 ton diesel trucks idling outside construction sites, minimarts and while pumping diesel at the service station: we don’t want to hear your clatter, breathe your exhaust, or pay more for fuel because you like to consume it. Not a diesel hater, but ….
181 comments and not one “sugar in the gas tank will destroy an engine”?
Or did I miss it?
you missed it. it was in the post 4 above yours.
FDR led to the failure of Packard because he forced that company to sell all the dies for its senior line to the Russians. This was to appease Uncle Joe Stalin who fancied Packard limos. The lack of a prestige line then led to the disastrous loss in status of Packard as a luxury brand post-war. A conspiracy theory that has been well debunked by Paul among others. ZIS is similar but different in many details, Packard’s abysmal marketing and product decisions did the damage not FDR.
While Xerox didn’t invent the mouse itself, It’s true that Xerox DID come up with the Windowed OS – And the desktop metaphor of folders,trash can, icons. Infact they did it an entire decade before the McIntosh came out! Also Apple didn’t invent the “smartphone” either I had a Palm Treo that had a color touchscreen (and a keyboard) full internet access (cellular and Wifi) a camera,an email client, ETC several years before the iPhone hit the streets.
Thought of another one as I was on a long drive today: “Radial tires should never be cross-rotated. It’ll damage the belts, once they’re ‘set’ into turning into a certain direction.”
While that may have been true of early radials, unless they’re directional there is usually no reason why a modern radial tire can’t be cross-rotated.
The owner’s manual for my ’07 VW recommends rotating the tires front to back on the same side only, so that’s what I’ve done. Any idea why they don’t recommend cross-rotated? The tires aren’t directional. Also, I have the standard 15″ steelies and the spare is a full-size, full-service tire, but they don’t recommend including it in the rotation. This may be just so they can save a few bucks by not putting a TPMS sensor in the spare.
I would like clear up the misconception, that Chrysler products are “good, reliable” vehicles…….
http://www.businessinsider.com/consumer-reports-just-called-out-chrysler-for-its-alarmingly-bad-quality-2016-2
As quoted: “The reasons why most FCA products are at the bottom of our Ratings is mostly due to POOR RELIABILITY and sub-par performance in our testing. Only the Durango is recommended,” Consumer Reports automotive specialist Mike Quincy told Business Insider in an email.”
I have two:
– That the infamous Oldsmobile 350 diesel was hastily converted from a gasoline engine
– this peaked in the ’90s – the inherent inferiority of factory stereos. Certain aftermarket head units, amps, and speakers outperformed good factory units, but as many times as not a higher-end factory unit delivered equal or better sound and had more sensitive tuners. Don’t even get me started on the awful ergonomics of most aftermarket head units then and now, with their tiny buttons and flashy and distracting Tokyo/Las Vegas-at-nighttime displays.
I absolutely agree with you on after market stereos! Beyond the fact that ergonomics take a back seat to styling, the styling never blends well with the rest of the car. And you’re also right on the tuners. The radio part is neglected on most of these. I only ever installed one when I couldn’t replace or repair a factory unit.
Umm; the Olds 350 diesel WAS hastily converted from a gasoline engine. Which is not intrinsically a bad thing, except for the “hasty” part.
While I’ll readily acknowledge that (a) you know way more about cars than I do and (b) a bunch of stuff that’s posted in online FAQs and fan sites is inaccurate, the majority of descriptions I’ve read about the 350 diesel claim that although the bore, stroke, and bolt pattern were shared with the gasoline Rocket 350, it still was basically a new design that misguidedly took advantage of some existing parts and engineering. A quick Google search turns up these near the top hits asserting it was not a “converted” gas engine – are they all wrong?
http://www.dieselhub.com/idi/5.7-olds-diesel.html
http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed-gm-the-oldsmobile-diesel
Yes. The Olds diesel was a modified gas Olds engine…it was a small-block with larger big-block size mains, special heads, a heavier (though not enough) block casting, an injection pump in place of the distributor, and high-compression heads. Note that racers used to love the blocks for building hot rod Olds engines…a diesel 350 block with a 455 crank is shorter and narrower than a 455, and stronger…it is, fittingly, 442 cubic inches.
John gave you some details. I only quickly read the first article you linked too; they’re obviously defensive. Nobody said the 5.7 diesel was a 5.7 gas engine that was modified in the most minimal way to run as a diesel. Yes, it had a new block and most other components. But the Olds gas 350 was the starting point; the modified (beefed up) all of its components as necessary to make it stronger. But that’s really no different than what was often done for high-performance or truck versions of gas engines.
The point is this: Olds didn’t start out with a clean-sheet design; it started with a gas 350. And there’s nothing wrong with that in principle; it’s exactly what VW did with their first diesel in 1975, and others have done it too. And modern gas and diesel engines often share basic architectures.
The fact is that Olds didn’t take the time to test the diesel long enough to make sure there were no fundamental flaws in it. Which there were. But that’s not to say that the same thing might have happened with a clean-sheet engine.
As a matter of fact though, the engineers at Detroit Diesel were not asked to be actively involved in the development of the 5.7. Yet when they did design a new clean-sheet diesel V8, the 6.2, it avoided most of the pitfalls of the Olds 5.7, although it had its share of problems too.
‘Yes, it had a new block and most other components”, So, Yeah it in that regard shares the same design qualities as the BASCO engine in my lawn mower as it does with the Rocket 350.
Now you’re just trolling.
Welp, the 350D was a modified gas engine after all. I need to stop believing all the revisionist history I read on the internets. I just didn’t expect there to be so many Olds Diesel fanboys….
Favorite is any “Big 3 Collusion” story, as if there are no other automotive companies in the world.
Can we put the “501” Cadillac engine to rest?
The correct, as advertised, displacement of 500 cubes is enough.
The fact that, regardless of what factory literature says, that the only FoMoCo cars which actually received 427 engines in ’68 were Cougars. This has been verified by Marti Auto Works, who own the rights to the FoMoCo production database.