When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
..... I would like to pose a question to the FTE group here.
Now let's all assume that we agree with Ron and believe this '65 truck was driven for most of its first 15 years of life to gain 55K miles and then, in 1980, it was parked in a barn and covered with a tarp, was not started and/or moved. Then, after 35 years of sitting in the barn (1980-2015), a fella came along, removed the tarp, changed only its fluids & added a new 12V battery, and the vehicle started right up and the guy is now driving it around town.
Now my Question:
Does anyone here believe you could take a 1990s or newer truck/car, drive it for 15 years logging 55K miles, then park it in a barn, tossed a tarp over it, and leave it sit for an additional 35 years, and REALLY think they could just change the fluids and put in a fresh 12V battery AND IT WOULD START AND BE DRIVEABLE AS IS?
Now I'm going to assume Ron had to also add some air to the tires on the ol' '65; that's fine.
But I HIGHLY DOUBT any vehicle built in the past 25 years would stand up to a similar test.
..... I would like to pose a question to the FTE group here.
Now let's all assume that we agree with Ron and believe this '65 truck was driven for most of its first 15 years of life to gain 55K miles and then parked in a barn and covered with a tarp. Then let's also assume this same truck was not started and/or moved until 1980, 15 years later. Then, after 15 years of sitting, a fella came along, removed the tarp, changed only its fluids & added a new 12V battery, and the vehicle started right up and the guy is now driving it around town.
Now my Question:
Does anyone here believe you could take a 1990s or newer truck/car, drive it for 15 years logging 55K miles, then park it in a barn, tossed a tarp over it, and leave it sit for an additional 15 years, and REALLY think they could just change the fluids and put in a fresh 12V battery AND IT WOULD START AND BE DRIVEABLE AS IS?
Now I'm going to assume Ron had to also add some air to the tires on the ol' '65; that's fine.
But I HIGHLY DOUBT any vehicle built in the past 25 years would stand up to a similar test.
WHAT SAY YOU, FTE Gang?
BarnieTrk
In two words: Im Possible! -Samuel Goldwyn quote (Russian immigrant, born Samuel Goldfish, never learned how to spell English correctly).
My grand dads 60 C10 had about 5k on it in 1965 when he passed. It sat in the barn for 15 years and was only driven a couple times a year when one of the kids went out to the farm.
My grand dads 60 C10 had about 5k on it in 1965 when he passed. It sat in the barn for 15 years and was only driven a couple times a year when one of the kids went out to the farm. So its possible.
I don't doubt that, Shadowrider123. But that was a 1960 vehicle. That's my point.
I'm asking about doing the same with a 1990s or newer vehicle......will it fire and drive down the road if placed under the same conditions - just like Ron's '65 barn find did.
I went back and I believe I edited / repaired my errors.
I also realize that, given my example, if I were to drive a 1990 or newer vehicle for 15 years then store it for another 35 years, we wouldn't be able to test my comparison until sometime into the future....... but regardless... I agree with you - NO FRIGGIN' WAY!
Today's 50+K$ trucks/cars would be junk if submitted to such a test......
Lord knows as much as I love old Fords...actually all of them, they are just so much better today. Truth is.....they wore out quick in those days. 100,000 miles and a car was "old" and worn out. Now you can blame it on folks not changing the oil or road conditions and such as that, but the fact is they last, go further and stay "new" much longer these days. With 60 grand and new pickup truck being in the same sentence they ought to be better.
I have no doubt if you were to drain the gas out of my 94 F-150 and it was stored in a stable environment, in 15 years with new gas and a hot battery it would crank right up. Thing is a 94 is old. It's older now than my 64 project that was parked in 83. I still consider that 94....."new. My Dad's Green 64 was my childhood truck and it was always...."Old".
Now there was a time in the late 70s-mid 80s when the old stuff was so much better than what the factory offered then. Now though an engine can make more HP than anything in the muscle car era and still get decent mileage. I like the old stuff so much better but the fact remains the new EFI cars are a lot better than many of us old heads care to admit.
Why not? That is, assuming the electronics were kept dry.
rx
Rexblue,
Sorry, you cannot assume that. This is a BARN TEST WITH ONLY A TARP COVERING IT. Not an air-conditioned environment, no moisture controls, no critter controls, nada but a tarp in a barn..... Yes, I agree, 'desert storage' typically will last longer than non-desert type storage conditions. But from the looks of the trees in the background of Ron's '65 Barn Find,,,, that's not desert terrain.
F-ONE,
I'm not asking if you can drive more miles or go faster or dyno more HP with a '65 than a 1990s or newer vehicle. I'm only asking for your opinion on their BARN storage longevity and/or viability. I tend to agree with your statement, "With 60 grand and new pickup truck being in the same sentence they ought to be better." But I don't think they would pass this test..........
Would you say being stored in a BARN WITH A TARP ON IT a "...stored in a stable environment,..." or not?
I wouldn't call A BARN with a TARP a stable environment.
"Old Man" Huffman was a Packard collector, had 100's parked in a fenced yard out in the open near the high desert town of Mojave CA
When Huffman died in 1975, a former NFL football player who owned a tow truck biz in Orange County bought all of them, had them trucked to his Santa Ana storage lot.
He expected to make a killing, but he ended up losing his azz. In the beginning, he attempted to sell them individually, but that didn't work, so he held a well publicized auction.
The chrome was perfect, but the paint was baked by the sun and blistered by blowing sand, the interiors were baked, rodents had chewed the wiring, the cars all stunk inside because the windows were rolled up.
About 50 of the cars were 1953/56 Clippers, that most people used back then as parts cars, so they weren't worth very much.
He made a few bucks on the ratty 1953/56 Caribbean ragtops and the pre-wars, lost his azz on the rest, many of which he ended up scrapping as they were 'too far gone.'
Ive got a cherry little 64 Fairlane parked under a shed in 1980.
Under a shed since 80....Gas tank unusable....All hubs locked....289 locked up was able to free only by loosening bearings....It all depends on how they are stored. I suspect the 289 may have been locked when the car was parked.....I think they got the rods/main caps mixed up on a backyard build......
I knew a fellow who bought a 15 Model T in the 80s parked before 1940 and it cranked on the original plugs. My aunt has a 2003 Pontiac Coupe that will not crank...so I guess it all depends on how they are stored, luck of the draw and for the most part the condition the car was in when parked.
ND,
An EXCELLENT example of how desert storage is NOT the answer.......thank you!
F-ONE,
You hit the key I was listening for: "...so I guess it all depends on....luck of the draw..."
I don't believe it is the make, model year or a particular manufacturer that makes for these events of 'automotive miracles' occur..... It is the sheer luck of the draw or happenstance that allows for them.
Personally, I think the BEST thing we can do for our old vehicles, is to keep driving them - and don't abuse them. Run them in & out of heat cycles, stir their fluids & change it regularly, charge their battery & operate their systems, exercise their suspension, give them baths and keep them void of spiders, mice, bees, & critters in general, turn their tires & electric motors, etc.
And yes I agree, maintaining them in a dry rather than a wet environment would be best - to keep any metal corrosion to a minimum.
Ron,
You located one of these 'automotive miracles'. These things don't happen too often.... savor the moment, my friend.
I don't think this is a query easily validated. Too many variables. Exceptions will always abound due to environment, preparation, etc.
Personally, I think it is actually a greater potential (or higher percentage) for a post-'90's vehicle to come back to life "unscathed" after a long hiatus than it is for a 1960's vehicle. Apart from the obvious fluids and battery, which will be similar for both, here's some of the reasons I think this:
- Have been there, done that. I've "revived" maybe 20 vehicles in my short life. Anything from the 60's I can usually get running easily enough, but that's about as far as I go without some significant front-to-rear scrutinizing, fixing, replacing. Newer vehicles, after flushing the fuel lines and other fluids might need a car wash and a air freshener.
- All the connectors are going to be better the newer the vehicle. Most by that year are using some form of Weatherpack connector. Ours were very vulnerable to corrosion due to no sealing at all.
- No fuel pump or carburetor with rubber bits. Usually a fuel pump diaphragm will grow brittle. May last, may not. Unless you pull the carb and drain it of every bit of gas during storage prep, the remaining will turn to gel. Fuel will stand around in lots of areas and gel. Lines will corrode. Tanks will rust. New vehicles with fuel injection, if they drained the tank, will flush at 80 PSI pretty well. Tanks are poly, no rust. Lines are poly, no rust. Pull the line, fill the tank, turn the key - pump a quart to clean the line. New filter. Fire it up.
- Better metal protection - or less rust-potential metal parts in general. Most of an old vehicle will have a lot of corrosion from front to rear. New vehicles may just have some dust - but not much rust.
- Better cockpit sealing. Fewer rodents will find their way into a new car compared to an older one, which can offer many paths for these critters. Assuming, of course, they were both prepped the same way. Whatever they can contaminate under the hood may be comparable on old and new vehicles, but there may be more wire and hose damage on a newer car from new baby rats teething due to the simple fact there are more wires and hose to chew on.
- Better brake components and sealing. Old brake lines rot with age. Steel lines corrode from the inside. Most all the new stuff is coated lines and non-rusting items for calipers, etc.
There are probably other things too, but this is plenty. But again, there is no hard and fast rule here. We are talking "barn find" here, probably not well prepped for storage and certainly not environmentally controlled. Your results may vary.
05-26-2015, 10:10 PM
