Question of the Week: What’s your favorite automotive myth?

No, it wasn’t just the Pinto wagon.The wagon may not have even been part of the recall, because the tank wasn’t placed as close to the rear of the car.
Our '71 two door coupe was part of the recall. They replaced the fuel cap, neck and hose to the tank. There was also a thick plastic shield that wrapped around the rear of the tank.
Unfortunately I totaled it in 1980, in a spin out, in a sharp curve, on the interstate. It started pouring rain as I entered the curve. it went round and round hitting all four corners on the side of the bridge. The JC Penney Scat Track radial 60’s probably didn’t help. I wasn’t wearing my seat belt back then, but I walked away with no injuries and no fire. Sadly it was my brother’s Pinto. I still avoid that subject around him.

This book may have some useful info. “Pontiac Fiero 1984-1988 -Performance Portfolio”
by [R.M. Clarke]

It all depends on how one interprets the law of gravity! :wink:

I have two. Both deal with myths about the 70 Charger Daytona and 71 Superbird. The first about the scoops on the top of the fender being for tire clearance. This was a myth used by the Chrysler teams to get away with using what is essentially a vent to help get air from underneath the car, and over it in under the nose of NASCAR. The street cars were different. The Dodge had a small hole and the Plymouth had ho hole. The second is about the rear wings being so high for trunk clearance. The missile engineer that developed the wing cared nothing about the trunk opening all the way. The design was to get the wing up into “clean air”. The fact that the trunk could open was a coincidence. They also installed a limiter to keep it from completely opening so your fingers could get a purchase on the edge of the trunk lid to close it.

My favorite myth is that a car will last forever if you maintain it. Regular maintenance will certainly extend the life of any vehicle, but eventually you reach the point where the things that are wearing out and failing are really expensive to rebuild or replace (things like the engine or the transmission, or the quarter panels or floor rusting out).

Indeed there was an Ad campaign for 64 1/2 Mustang and IIRC

I tried looking it up but I too seem to recall not only ads for 64 1/2 Mustangs but other Ford models as well. I’ll up my ante of “seem” to “pretty sure” but can’t find anything to post and prove it.

One I cannot believe is a myth of sorts is that the LM7 LS is based on the 327. I’ve had to tell a good handful of people locally that it is way different, I have no idea who started it or who spread the rumor.

Who knows on that one. Maybe it’s the fact that the 5.3 Vortec is a 327 cubes.

It’s not 327, it’s 325 ci, so I have no idea. It’s a heck of a conversation stopper when you are talking to someone and they bring it up to prove how “smart” they are, that much I do know.

“the 100 MPG carburetor”…Ads in those 60’s magazines didn’t live past the Arab Oil Embargo…(cuz it didn’t get you that MPG)

Lol. I hear you on that one!

only 1963 Vette Coupes are "Split Window Coupes. from 64-67 model years the split windows were made into one window.

When the back windshield became one full size window, hundreds of 63 Split Window Coupe owners paid body shops to replace the 2 Windows with the 1964 back window. Later when the Split Windows skyrocketed in value, many owners paid body shops and/or dealers to replace the single back glass with the OEM rear glass . Ecklers in Michigan was building Custom body parts in a 2 car garage behind his parents home. Ralph Eckler beganing the parts and then moved to Florida where his business grew very big. Ralph died several years ago and his son now owns the business.

You’re also 50% wrong about the Volks wagons . Hitler ordered them to be designed and built as a car every German could afford. Hitler named them The People’s Car which in German, Volks Wagon simply translates to mean ‘The People’s Car’

So by saying that calling it a “split window coupe” is redundant, (that means you’re repeating yourself), suggests somehow that I don’t know the history behind it?
And I’m 100% right by saying that Hitler didn’t DESIGN the Bug. Everyone who has seen one knows what Volkswagen means. Thanks for the car 101.

Another is the Chevrolet engines raced at Indy in the 80s & 90s were small blocks. There were a few small blocks including those raced by Micky Thompson in the 60s but those in the 80s were purpose built by Ilmore Engineering. Nothing Chevrolet about them except the money.

BUT…And hear me out on this one. The 350 isn’t actually a 350. Nor is the 5.7 yet nobody balks when someone refers to it as a 350. So for arguments sake, is it REALLY a no no to call a 5.3 a 327? Not if someone can get away with calling a 350 a 350. Actually if you do the conversion math, 5.3 liters comes to 323 c.i. Actually 323.426. So I guess I wouldn’t get too down on someone at a show who refers to it as a 327 and correct them with “it’s a 325”. Now if the bore and stroke math brings it to 325 cubic inches big difference. And if that’s the case, then we should get a letter writing campaign going on and chastise GM for incorrectly csllingbit a 5.3 liter engine.

Even if we do call a 5.3 a 327, the main argument is still there. All the LS motors are a different family from the gen 1 and 2 SBC and only share a similar bellhousing.