Granite Geek - Latest Comments in Classic cars &#8230; really suckedhttp://granitegeek.disqus.com/enThu, 14 Jun 2007 06:25:55 -0000Re: Classic cars &#8230; really suckedhttp://granitegeek.org/2007/06/14/classic-cars-really-sucked/#comment-2109852<p>Thank you, dear brother.</p><p>1954 is correct: Older than me! And of course I meant "vacuum" when I wrote "hyraulic". I knew it was something to do with fluids, or lack thereof (air being a fluid).</p><p>Ah, shouldn't have gotten out of bed this morning.</p>David BrooksThu, 14 Jun 2007 06:25:55 -0000Re: Classic cars &#8230; really suckedhttp://granitegeek.org/2007/06/14/classic-cars-really-sucked/#comment-2109851<p>Boy, your ancient memory is really poor today. It was a 1954 Ford, with the V8 that would power the new 1955 Thunderbird the following year. Hydraulic? No, they were vacuum powered and did a good job until you went up a hill and the engine ate all the available vacuum. I finally sold it because it had a bad cam lobe.</p>RustyThu, 14 Jun 2007 04:02:42 -0000