Originally posted by c150L:
Hetfielt, I'm up by Appleton/New London. Maybe I'll go for a ride some time and take you up on that. I should have asked him for the code number itself. I guess that is why I posted the AZ guys statement here, looking for the code itself. When I take the coil spring compressor that I borrowed back to AZ, perhaps I'll have somone else there scan it again. I think I will "assume" the code he read was P0137 at this time.

Just an FYI; No intentions here to knock or jump on anyones comments made. Please accept my appology if I get get a bit punchy when it comes to this new technology garbage under the hoods of our newer vehicals these days. For the most part, it just does not size up in my book. Maybe I had too much experience during the muscle car days. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out what was wrong with an engine back in the good ol days. Now, it often takes forever and a ton of $$$ to get things working properly again.




I understand where you are coming from. I've had a few muscle cars in my day and worked on many more. It was easier to make modifications because it wasn't that hard to tweek the igniton curve or the carb jetting to compensate.

But today, we ask much more of a car then we did back then. The cars do not need the spark plugs and ignition points changed every 10,000 to 15,000 miles. We don't need to constantly tune it up. The timing never changes as there is no rubbing block on the points to wear. The electrical accessories are more demanding (better sound systems, power seats, power windows, power door locks, etc). Fuel economy is MUCH better. Perhaps the biggest issue is from the clean air standpoint.

I really don't want to go back to those days. It may be a bit more of a challange to figure out how to make a car run with modifications today, but you know more precisely what it is doing. High performance tuning is becoming more scientific. It is still an art, but there is less voodo.

My first wakeup to how well technology can make up for dumb muscle came the first time I drove a Taurus SHO when they were new. It performed about the same as my old 63 Chevy Impala with a built small block did. With 327 cubic inches that would have been about 5.4 liters as compared with the SHO at 3.0 liters. And the SHO had a smooth idle.

One little tiny factoid that might bring some of this into perspective is that a turbo Chrysler PT Cruiser has about the same performance specs as a 57 Fuel Injected Chevy Corvette.

As much as I enjoyed those old muscle cars, I enjoy being able to afford to put fuel in todays cars to drive to and from work and I also enjoy the cleaner air.

Jim Johnson 98 SVT 03 Escape Limited