Old cars vs New cars
- Thread starter maytag85
- Start date
Help Support :
Yes, Sean, leasing IS renting and you pay for the period you use it and no more. Trade it in and get another or pay off the residual and buy it outright or just walk away at the end of the lease period. It all depends on peoples circumstances and what they can afford and what they want. I personally never have leased a vehicle and my 2013 Silverado was paid off the day I bought it.
I own seven four wheeled vehicles, ranging from a '50 Plymouth not unlike Stan's, to a '99 Chrysler 300M.
Clearly the '99 is much much safer than the 60's and 50's vehicles. Airbags, crushable space forward, antilock brakes, etc. It is also more reliable.
But of course I love the older rides, I just don't like to commute in them.
As for the driver being the primary safety factor, well, that depends. You can be safest driver in the world but if you're in any car and someone comes barrelling over the divider and hits you head-on, you'd have a much better chance of survival in a modern vehicle. And yes, bigger is also safer, in general.
If I were to sell all my vehicles and settle on just one, I'd get one of the new Chrysler Pacifica minivans. They handle much like a big sedan, are not too bad on gas (esp. the new plug-in hybrid version), and are quite comfortable. They can hold a lot, as well, for trips to the hardware store for building supplies or elsewhere for furniture. I understand with all but the driver and front passenger seats "stowed", it can also hold a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood (or whatever). Plus I could see them doing well for single or double car camping trips.
[this post was last edited: 8/26/2017-19:47]
Clearly the '99 is much much safer than the 60's and 50's vehicles. Airbags, crushable space forward, antilock brakes, etc. It is also more reliable.
But of course I love the older rides, I just don't like to commute in them.
As for the driver being the primary safety factor, well, that depends. You can be safest driver in the world but if you're in any car and someone comes barrelling over the divider and hits you head-on, you'd have a much better chance of survival in a modern vehicle. And yes, bigger is also safer, in general.
If I were to sell all my vehicles and settle on just one, I'd get one of the new Chrysler Pacifica minivans. They handle much like a big sedan, are not too bad on gas (esp. the new plug-in hybrid version), and are quite comfortable. They can hold a lot, as well, for trips to the hardware store for building supplies or elsewhere for furniture. I understand with all but the driver and front passenger seats "stowed", it can also hold a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood (or whatever). Plus I could see them doing well for single or double car camping trips.
"I don't even know why people like to lease cars, it does not make sense at all. 'Leasing' is another word for renting!"
Well, there are many ways to interpret that question.
I will choose to interpret it as if you were honestly curious about it.
What is there to say against "renting" or "leasing"? Sure, you don't own the thing when you stop paying the rent/lease and return the car/house etc.
But just like not everyone can own a house or even if they *can* afford to own a home they might not want to, there's a place for leasing a car.
Sometimes that means *physically*, like a place like Los Angeles is not ideal to lease a car if you are driving more than 12,000 or 15,000 miles per year, depending on your contract.
But for me, leasing was a no brainer. We were a one car home because we didn't need two for the most part. When it came time we needed 2 cars and it was obvious that that was a temporary condition, we ran some calculations.
We could buy a car, but that cost (when all was said and done) much more than leasing. We did not need two cars like most people do. Most of the time, the Subaru Outback is all we need, and it's paid for and we only needed another commuter car.
So, I leased a smart car for 3 years, at only $150/month. Why? Because if I walked a mile to the rental car agent down my street and got a car for a day it was something like $30-40 a pop, and I'd need to do that at least once a week, if not 2 or 3 times a week. Cabs and similar (Uber, Lift) are not much cheaper either for where I live and where I'd need to commute to.
So, for just about $150/month I had the car full time to do whatever and go wherever I wanted to.
I really loved the smart car and suggest people in similar circumstances at least go for a test drive before criticizing it. No, it's not a car for everyone, and it's definitely a car for good highways and cities, you do not want to drive thru a big pothole with it because if your tire gets mangled (no, it does not get mangled by driving over potholes all the time, just some combinations of particular speeds and sizes of potholes), you do not have a spare, you'll want to get towed. And no, I *never* once got a tire problem or any other mechanical problems in the 3 years I leased.
You also need to be prepared for the people who might be sick in the head out there -- way too many times I was stuck behind a car or worse, an 18-wheeler, going at 55 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone, and when I saw it was safe, I'd pass them at 65-70 mph and now those crazy folks (with possibly small dicks) who just couldn't bear that a small car zoomed past them would either try to tailgate me or pass me at over 80 mph. It was even funnier when the state police would stop them and fine them for speeding.
Anyway, I'm thankful that I live somewhere where we have so many choices so we can fit different people and styles -- much better than friends of mine described their experience in certain places where the state decided what was good for everyone and one had to pay thru the nose for a Trabant or similar.
Cheers,
-- Paulo.
Well, there are many ways to interpret that question.
I will choose to interpret it as if you were honestly curious about it.
What is there to say against "renting" or "leasing"? Sure, you don't own the thing when you stop paying the rent/lease and return the car/house etc.
But just like not everyone can own a house or even if they *can* afford to own a home they might not want to, there's a place for leasing a car.
Sometimes that means *physically*, like a place like Los Angeles is not ideal to lease a car if you are driving more than 12,000 or 15,000 miles per year, depending on your contract.
But for me, leasing was a no brainer. We were a one car home because we didn't need two for the most part. When it came time we needed 2 cars and it was obvious that that was a temporary condition, we ran some calculations.
We could buy a car, but that cost (when all was said and done) much more than leasing. We did not need two cars like most people do. Most of the time, the Subaru Outback is all we need, and it's paid for and we only needed another commuter car.
So, I leased a smart car for 3 years, at only $150/month. Why? Because if I walked a mile to the rental car agent down my street and got a car for a day it was something like $30-40 a pop, and I'd need to do that at least once a week, if not 2 or 3 times a week. Cabs and similar (Uber, Lift) are not much cheaper either for where I live and where I'd need to commute to.
So, for just about $150/month I had the car full time to do whatever and go wherever I wanted to.
I really loved the smart car and suggest people in similar circumstances at least go for a test drive before criticizing it. No, it's not a car for everyone, and it's definitely a car for good highways and cities, you do not want to drive thru a big pothole with it because if your tire gets mangled (no, it does not get mangled by driving over potholes all the time, just some combinations of particular speeds and sizes of potholes), you do not have a spare, you'll want to get towed. And no, I *never* once got a tire problem or any other mechanical problems in the 3 years I leased.
You also need to be prepared for the people who might be sick in the head out there -- way too many times I was stuck behind a car or worse, an 18-wheeler, going at 55 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone, and when I saw it was safe, I'd pass them at 65-70 mph and now those crazy folks (with possibly small dicks) who just couldn't bear that a small car zoomed past them would either try to tailgate me or pass me at over 80 mph. It was even funnier when the state police would stop them and fine them for speeding.
Anyway, I'm thankful that I live somewhere where we have so many choices so we can fit different people and styles -- much better than friends of mine described their experience in certain places where the state decided what was good for everyone and one had to pay thru the nose for a Trabant or similar.
Cheers,
-- Paulo.
I'll stick with "new" cars. Have had four since 1986. Haven't had a car payment since 1989, which counts from finishing #1.
Chrysler owned by FIAT...
What's wrong with that? Before FIAT, it was owned by Daimler Benz, and in between by Dan Quayle's investment group, "Cerberos", which is the name of the three headed dog of Hell.
I think FIAT has helped to improve Chrysler's offerings. The new RAM pickup in addition to the Pacifica. They did seem to sort of miss the mark with the Renegade and the Cherokee, though. The Charger/Challenger/300 trio seem to have improved significantly under FIAT's ownership, although all three models initially predated the acquisition.
What is odd, however, is that while FIAT is a successful international company specializing in small cars, it has fumbled trying to field a truly competitive small car in the US. The FIAT 500 family has been panned for its reliability woes, the larger 500L for a plethora of drawbacks. The Alpha based Chrysler 200 remake has fallen short in terms of mechanicals. FIAT announced it was going to concentrate on the most profitable segment, the SUV/Jeep, but I haven't really seen anything all that remarkable arise. Maybe the new Wrangler will do the magic trick of addressing its roadability and comfort issues and still keep the off-road crowd happy, but I doubt it.
But Chrysler had many of these same issues before FIAT took over, and without FIAT Chrysler would probably be a dead duck. Latest rumor I read recently is that a Chinese operation wants to buy the Jeep brand off FIAT/Chrysler. That would be a mistake for FIAT, I think, since it contains some of the most profitable models it sells. But it could allow FCAU to field a competitive Dodge branded SUV line and/or off-road vehicle. The Durango gets good reviews but can't shoulder the load alone; it needs to be supplemented with a small SUV and a larger luxury version.
Well, that's my take on it. I have seen FIAT's ownership as a net positive for Chrysler.
What's wrong with that? Before FIAT, it was owned by Daimler Benz, and in between by Dan Quayle's investment group, "Cerberos", which is the name of the three headed dog of Hell.
I think FIAT has helped to improve Chrysler's offerings. The new RAM pickup in addition to the Pacifica. They did seem to sort of miss the mark with the Renegade and the Cherokee, though. The Charger/Challenger/300 trio seem to have improved significantly under FIAT's ownership, although all three models initially predated the acquisition.
What is odd, however, is that while FIAT is a successful international company specializing in small cars, it has fumbled trying to field a truly competitive small car in the US. The FIAT 500 family has been panned for its reliability woes, the larger 500L for a plethora of drawbacks. The Alpha based Chrysler 200 remake has fallen short in terms of mechanicals. FIAT announced it was going to concentrate on the most profitable segment, the SUV/Jeep, but I haven't really seen anything all that remarkable arise. Maybe the new Wrangler will do the magic trick of addressing its roadability and comfort issues and still keep the off-road crowd happy, but I doubt it.
But Chrysler had many of these same issues before FIAT took over, and without FIAT Chrysler would probably be a dead duck. Latest rumor I read recently is that a Chinese operation wants to buy the Jeep brand off FIAT/Chrysler. That would be a mistake for FIAT, I think, since it contains some of the most profitable models it sells. But it could allow FCAU to field a competitive Dodge branded SUV line and/or off-road vehicle. The Durango gets good reviews but can't shoulder the load alone; it needs to be supplemented with a small SUV and a larger luxury version.
Well, that's my take on it. I have seen FIAT's ownership as a net positive for Chrysler.
Well, one thing has changed for the better since Fiat
took over Chrysler.
Parts availability has improved enormously. I hate, hate, hate, loath and detest the local Dodge dealer. Loathsome people. Monsters.
Horrid.
Every part, whether it be a peanut lamp for the panel display or a $3.50 plastic clip for the door lock is 'not owner serviceable' and costs over $500 to be replaced by them.
Everything.
So - I go to Laramie or Douglas or Fort Collins and the Chrysler/Dodge dealers there are happy to sell me the part for a few bucks, give me a tip or two and that's that.
Under Daimler, it was impossible to get anything out of MOPAR without a fight.
And, dahlinks - let's not forget how rah-rah ameriKa some were about Whirlpool buying out Maytag and not those awful Chinese (you know, the ones who promised to keep the production and jobs here in the US?). Yeah, how did that work out? Oh, right.
took over Chrysler.
Parts availability has improved enormously. I hate, hate, hate, loath and detest the local Dodge dealer. Loathsome people. Monsters.
Horrid.
Every part, whether it be a peanut lamp for the panel display or a $3.50 plastic clip for the door lock is 'not owner serviceable' and costs over $500 to be replaced by them.
Everything.
So - I go to Laramie or Douglas or Fort Collins and the Chrysler/Dodge dealers there are happy to sell me the part for a few bucks, give me a tip or two and that's that.
Under Daimler, it was impossible to get anything out of MOPAR without a fight.
And, dahlinks - let's not forget how rah-rah ameriKa some were about Whirlpool buying out Maytag and not those awful Chinese (you know, the ones who promised to keep the production and jobs here in the US?). Yeah, how did that work out? Oh, right.
xraytech
Well-known member
I'm split on cars. My biggest requirement is that it's an upper-end General Motors product.
I currently have a 2013 Cadillac XTS Luxury, I like the feel of driving the car, as well as the front and side airbags, front and rear parking sensors, ABS, traction control. I also love the amenities not found on older offerings such as the keyless start, panoramic moonroof, heated and cooled seats, heated steering wheel, and remote start.
The things I don't like are the standard 19" tires are very expensive, and you can't get aggressive snow tires for it, and secondly I'd like a larger car, however I realize this is the "new" full size.
I also have an older car, while its not as old as some, it's still old enough for Classic plates.
I have a 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. I love it's very large size, the 5.7 litre V-8, the floaty ride and the incredible feel and handling only found in a RWD car. It is new enough to have dual front air bags, but doesn't have traction control or ABS. It does have heated seats, however the other options I've become accustomed to weren't offered at the time.
This car has better visibility than my 2013, and I still average about 20 mpg.
It is a car I still feel safe in eve considering its age, and gives me the size and feel I like for daily driving to help keep the miles down on the 2013 since I average around 22/25k miles a year.
Oh and the 1993 has a hood ornament which is my most favorite accessory.
I currently have a 2013 Cadillac XTS Luxury, I like the feel of driving the car, as well as the front and side airbags, front and rear parking sensors, ABS, traction control. I also love the amenities not found on older offerings such as the keyless start, panoramic moonroof, heated and cooled seats, heated steering wheel, and remote start.
The things I don't like are the standard 19" tires are very expensive, and you can't get aggressive snow tires for it, and secondly I'd like a larger car, however I realize this is the "new" full size.
I also have an older car, while its not as old as some, it's still old enough for Classic plates.
I have a 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. I love it's very large size, the 5.7 litre V-8, the floaty ride and the incredible feel and handling only found in a RWD car. It is new enough to have dual front air bags, but doesn't have traction control or ABS. It does have heated seats, however the other options I've become accustomed to weren't offered at the time.
This car has better visibility than my 2013, and I still average about 20 mpg.
It is a car I still feel safe in eve considering its age, and gives me the size and feel I like for daily driving to help keep the miles down on the 2013 since I average around 22/25k miles a year.
Oh and the 1993 has a hood ornament which is my most favorite accessory.
That Silverado pictured earlier was the 5th Chevy truck I have owned. Only reason I traded my last '95 because the frame and gas tank rotted out with this crap they put on the roads. I came from a Ford family as my great uncle owned the dealership, he died, new owners screwed everyone and Ford would do nothing. I never had problems with my GM vehicles with many going well over 100000 miles with nothing other than normal maintenance. They say your mileage may vary but my mileage has worked just fine. I had big problems with not only Fords, but Dodge and especially Toyota and the dealers were no help to fix anything.
gusherb
Well-known member
My great uncle has a '99 DeVille. It just wafts down the road and sure is quiet, the powertrain is my favorite part even though it's the dreaded NorthStar, but having a quiet smooth V8 pulling you is a luxury I can really appreciate and sad we don't really get that anymore thanks to CAFE and cost cutting.
The handling and especially the steering feel (or lacktherof) makes me uncomfortable driving the car for long though. I would hate to have to make an evasive maneuver in it.
I guess the comfort is good, I never really got to drive that car much as this uncle lives in Texas. I didn't think the interior room was particularly impressive, and the seats don't really quite do it for me. It probably doesn't help that I'm comparing it to my modern car, a 2013 Nissan Altima with the zero gravity seats and a decent handling ride that also manages to provide an isolated floaty feel. I can drive that car for hours on end without much fatigue.
The handling and especially the steering feel (or lacktherof) makes me uncomfortable driving the car for long though. I would hate to have to make an evasive maneuver in it.
I guess the comfort is good, I never really got to drive that car much as this uncle lives in Texas. I didn't think the interior room was particularly impressive, and the seats don't really quite do it for me. It probably doesn't help that I'm comparing it to my modern car, a 2013 Nissan Altima with the zero gravity seats and a decent handling ride that also manages to provide an isolated floaty feel. I can drive that car for hours on end without much fatigue.
Well, My work car is an '01 VW diesel Beetle with 245,000 miles on it that were all put on by me and I still love that car. My boat puller/winter weather driver is an 01 GMC jimmy with just over 100,000 miles on it. But I really enjoy driving our new Lincoln MKS in my profile pic. It's AWD, will go in ANY weather. It is a V6, but has more power than our previous 07 Cadillac DTS with the high performance version of the Northstar and won't start blowing oil when it gets 75,000 miles on it. It handles like a German car (have had 3 VW's, 1 Audi, and 3 Mercedes so I can compare) and is effortless to drive. We know it can handle a crash because Tony totaled our last MKS in 2016 by taking out a utility pole. Yes, the car broke into a zillion pieces, but the cabin was totally intact and he walked out alive in one piece. As much as I like some of the older Mercedes, Volvo, and VW cars, I think I'll keep our new Lincoln. It has blind spot monitoring, rear cameras, front and back parking sensors, and will call for help in an accident. It even has front seat butt massagers!
warmsecondrinse
Well-known member
I learned to drive on a '74 Olds Custom Cruiser: 127" wheelbase, 233" length, 455 4 bbk V8, held 9 with the forward facing 3rd seat, back window slid up into the roof and the gate down under the spare tire. With its limited slip differential and a set of aggressive snows it was unstoppable in winter.
So yeah. I do feel comfortable when I sit behind the wheel and see a hood large enough to be a runway and the windshield & side windows are far from my head. I agree with Hans: In those aircraft carriers it WAS easier to know where all 4 corners were at all times.
The limited slip/ABS/stability control combo is important enough that I wouldn't want a car without it. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether the additional safety features outweigh the value of size and weight.
However, budget, driving environment, need to carry passengers, etc. often take priority over preferences. In 2008 I put $99 down on a Smartcar. Alas, my then present car died before I could take delivery of the commuter's dream.....
FFWD to 2012: I purchased the Nissan Cube many of you have seen. It holds 4 REALLY tall guys or 2 and a Maytag. I cruises silently at 80+ mph while giving 30+ mpg. It fits into amazingly small parking spaces. Jump to 2017: July 10th I mailed in my last loan payment, nearly a year early. July 24th an idiot came to a halt at a fork on a major highway, went right, changed his mind and went left cutting me off. I managed to avoid him but the van behind me wasn't so great at avoiding. Attached are pics of the result.
I did check out a SmartCar, but alas, those $150/month deals are not available in my area.
I decided on another Cube, I found a few and Louis (NewVista58) was kind enough to accompany me to check out the most likely prospect. Louis' automotive brilliance kept the salesman's babble to a minimum and a deal was struck. Last Saturday we picked it up.
It's 2 years older than my previous one, but with lower yearly mileage. I've only had it a week, but so far, so good.
In a perfect world I'd have 3 cars, I think: One would be a plug-in hybrid, AWD version of my Cube or a 4 door SmartCar for everyday use. One would be a big old boat in mint condition '77 Town & Country? New Yorker? The third? Some uber 4x4 and I've always had a weakness for the MB Gelandewagen.... However, I suspect at some point disproving accusations of "compensation" would stop being amusing and start being annoying....
So yeah. I do feel comfortable when I sit behind the wheel and see a hood large enough to be a runway and the windshield & side windows are far from my head. I agree with Hans: In those aircraft carriers it WAS easier to know where all 4 corners were at all times.
The limited slip/ABS/stability control combo is important enough that I wouldn't want a car without it. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether the additional safety features outweigh the value of size and weight.
However, budget, driving environment, need to carry passengers, etc. often take priority over preferences. In 2008 I put $99 down on a Smartcar. Alas, my then present car died before I could take delivery of the commuter's dream.....
FFWD to 2012: I purchased the Nissan Cube many of you have seen. It holds 4 REALLY tall guys or 2 and a Maytag. I cruises silently at 80+ mph while giving 30+ mpg. It fits into amazingly small parking spaces. Jump to 2017: July 10th I mailed in my last loan payment, nearly a year early. July 24th an idiot came to a halt at a fork on a major highway, went right, changed his mind and went left cutting me off. I managed to avoid him but the van behind me wasn't so great at avoiding. Attached are pics of the result.
I did check out a SmartCar, but alas, those $150/month deals are not available in my area.
I decided on another Cube, I found a few and Louis (NewVista58) was kind enough to accompany me to check out the most likely prospect. Louis' automotive brilliance kept the salesman's babble to a minimum and a deal was struck. Last Saturday we picked it up.
It's 2 years older than my previous one, but with lower yearly mileage. I've only had it a week, but so far, so good.
In a perfect world I'd have 3 cars, I think: One would be a plug-in hybrid, AWD version of my Cube or a 4 door SmartCar for everyday use. One would be a big old boat in mint condition '77 Town & Country? New Yorker? The third? Some uber 4x4 and I've always had a weakness for the MB Gelandewagen.... However, I suspect at some point disproving accusations of "compensation" would stop being amusing and start being annoying....
norgeway
Well-known member
A 50 PLYMOUTH
Now THAT I would drive every day!!!Had a 53 Plymouth and a 53 Imperial, Wish I had them back!
Now THAT I would drive every day!!!Had a 53 Plymouth and a 53 Imperial, Wish I had them back!
Two reasons we aren't so keen on new cars
1) With few exceptions, American cars put out from the early '80s through the mid-90's were AWFUL. Poor quality, horrid design, badly made environmental controls, cheap plastic.
2) Today's cars frequently look like those bars of soap you see in the shower just before you toss them and put in a new one. Slippery, yes. Pretty, no.
Quality has improved, but our collective memories have not. Older people who can afford brand new cars have noticed but people under 50 who are still driving cars from that era are so not impressed by their poor quality.
Safety - there's no question that it's better for the energy from a crash to be absorbed through destruction of the car's front end, motor, frame, etc. than in the passenger compartment. Ditto elsewhere. This is one big reason cars from the '90s or so on tend to crumple like tin-foil up to the firewall - and then stay together really well.
I've got a customer who owns a temporary holding yard (just like 'previously owned automobile' it's American for 'junk yard'). He lets me browse there regularly. From what I can tell, except for American trucks (the Republicans exempted them from most safety regulations), the best US cars to be in really bad crashes are the Subaru and larger GM models and the ubiquitous FORD/Mercury/Lincoln 'Crown Victoria'/Grand Marquis/Town Car.
Trucks are awful at roll-overs.
Then again, when people refuse to wear safety belts, it's all academic. I was out one night with a bunch of Wyoming queens a few years back. Only one wearing a safety belt. When they called me chicken, I said I'd rather decelerate at the same rate as the car with the car absorbing the energy than the other way round. They weren't impressed.
But, then - our generation filtered air polloution through our asbestos cigarette filters, so it was a silly thing to discuss anyway.
1) With few exceptions, American cars put out from the early '80s through the mid-90's were AWFUL. Poor quality, horrid design, badly made environmental controls, cheap plastic.
2) Today's cars frequently look like those bars of soap you see in the shower just before you toss them and put in a new one. Slippery, yes. Pretty, no.
Quality has improved, but our collective memories have not. Older people who can afford brand new cars have noticed but people under 50 who are still driving cars from that era are so not impressed by their poor quality.
Safety - there's no question that it's better for the energy from a crash to be absorbed through destruction of the car's front end, motor, frame, etc. than in the passenger compartment. Ditto elsewhere. This is one big reason cars from the '90s or so on tend to crumple like tin-foil up to the firewall - and then stay together really well.
I've got a customer who owns a temporary holding yard (just like 'previously owned automobile' it's American for 'junk yard'). He lets me browse there regularly. From what I can tell, except for American trucks (the Republicans exempted them from most safety regulations), the best US cars to be in really bad crashes are the Subaru and larger GM models and the ubiquitous FORD/Mercury/Lincoln 'Crown Victoria'/Grand Marquis/Town Car.
Trucks are awful at roll-overs.
Then again, when people refuse to wear safety belts, it's all academic. I was out one night with a bunch of Wyoming queens a few years back. Only one wearing a safety belt. When they called me chicken, I said I'd rather decelerate at the same rate as the car with the car absorbing the energy than the other way round. They weren't impressed.
But, then - our generation filtered air polloution through our asbestos cigarette filters, so it was a silly thing to discuss anyway.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
I have to admit that I'm one of those who has trouble remembering that quality on US cars has improved. Part of me feels like it's 1985, and Detroit is busy cranking out garbage. And, worse, trying to sell "improved" quality through various ads. Cheaper to buy a catchy ad campaign than actually improve quality.
Part of my problem is simply that I do tend to be behind the times--newest car I ever even looked at buying was 1990 something. But also there is a factor that I frankly know few people who drive a Detroit car. A lot of people I know went Japanese in the 80s, and just refused to look back. Someone my parents knew bought some Japanese car just because it was a cheap, fuel efficient second car. Years later, they realized that at 80,000 miles that car had all its original parts, unlike any Detroit car they'd ever had. And that was that--they decided we'll buy Japanese cars from here on out.
Admittedly, of course, those Japanese cars probably weren't as good as they were later on... I remember talking in 2000 to a mechanic about a 1980 or so Honda he was selling that he'd gone over. He commented that 150,000 miles or whatever it certainly was on a replacement engine. I then told him that my father's then Acura had over 200,000 miles, and not intention of quitting soon. The mechanic said yes, the Acura could do that. But the early Hondas in his experience didn't have an engine with that sort of life expectancy.
[this post was last edited: 8/27/2017-13:09]
Part of my problem is simply that I do tend to be behind the times--newest car I ever even looked at buying was 1990 something. But also there is a factor that I frankly know few people who drive a Detroit car. A lot of people I know went Japanese in the 80s, and just refused to look back. Someone my parents knew bought some Japanese car just because it was a cheap, fuel efficient second car. Years later, they realized that at 80,000 miles that car had all its original parts, unlike any Detroit car they'd ever had. And that was that--they decided we'll buy Japanese cars from here on out.
Admittedly, of course, those Japanese cars probably weren't as good as they were later on... I remember talking in 2000 to a mechanic about a 1980 or so Honda he was selling that he'd gone over. He commented that 150,000 miles or whatever it certainly was on a replacement engine. I then told him that my father's then Acura had over 200,000 miles, and not intention of quitting soon. The mechanic said yes, the Acura could do that. But the early Hondas in his experience didn't have an engine with that sort of life expectancy.
[this post was last edited: 8/27/2017-13:09]
lordkenmore
Well-known member
Then again, when people refuse to wear safety belts, it's all academic.
Thanks to some of my relatives, I saw the whole "I won't wear a seat belt!!!!" thing when I was growing up. I had relatives who preached that classic line about how much better you were getting flung free from a car that crashed or some such nonsense. I had other relatives that had no argument, but just never bothered wearing seat belts. Of course, they shut up and started using belts when it became a law with a fine attached.
One of my grandmothers was really bad about not wearing a seat belt. I recall us having to remind her constantly to put it on when she rode with us. Her last visits out here we had mandatory seat belt laws. Past that, it was just plain common safety sense in this area--I don't honestly remember a time when I didn't wear a seat belt. I think my parents started wearing them in the 60s.
Thanks to some of my relatives, I saw the whole "I won't wear a seat belt!!!!" thing when I was growing up. I had relatives who preached that classic line about how much better you were getting flung free from a car that crashed or some such nonsense. I had other relatives that had no argument, but just never bothered wearing seat belts. Of course, they shut up and started using belts when it became a law with a fine attached.
One of my grandmothers was really bad about not wearing a seat belt. I recall us having to remind her constantly to put it on when she rode with us. Her last visits out here we had mandatory seat belt laws. Past that, it was just plain common safety sense in this area--I don't honestly remember a time when I didn't wear a seat belt. I think my parents started wearing them in the 60s.
