Old cars vs New cars
- Thread starter maytag85
- Start date
Help Support :
Watch the video linked by Louis in Reply #7. That will explain the "You're better off being ejected from the car.." argument.
Not true today. You're much safer inside when accidents happen.
Not true today. You're much safer inside when accidents happen.
twintubdexter
Well-known member
Frankly...
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">...as much as I love vintage cars, especially late 50's and 60's, I will refrain from making any comments concerning which manufacturer is better or worse. Even if there were a million responses posted here you would never get a majority to agree on one brand. Very old cars are probably not the best choice for commuting or making lengthy trips from your home. As a retired oldster, I at one time made day trips to Los Angeles, San Diego or even Mexico. Now I rarely venture farther than the grocery store, and when I do I usually take my truck. </span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">The "old" cars for the most part remain in the garage. I do occasionally use the Cadillac instead of the pickup since it's so enjoyable to drive and us full-figured boys love those big doors. The Buick goes out for trips around the block and for local car club events. Both vehicles are air conditioned, a must here in the desert where today's temperature is slated to reach close to 120. I'd like to figure out a way to be buried in the Buick but I doubt they could dig a hole big enough. Do the cremate cars? </span>
[this post was last edited: 8/27/2017-17:20]
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">...as much as I love vintage cars, especially late 50's and 60's, I will refrain from making any comments concerning which manufacturer is better or worse. Even if there were a million responses posted here you would never get a majority to agree on one brand. Very old cars are probably not the best choice for commuting or making lengthy trips from your home. As a retired oldster, I at one time made day trips to Los Angeles, San Diego or even Mexico. Now I rarely venture farther than the grocery store, and when I do I usually take my truck. </span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">The "old" cars for the most part remain in the garage. I do occasionally use the Cadillac instead of the pickup since it's so enjoyable to drive and us full-figured boys love those big doors. The Buick goes out for trips around the block and for local car club events. Both vehicles are air conditioned, a must here in the desert where today's temperature is slated to reach close to 120. I'd like to figure out a way to be buried in the Buick but I doubt they could dig a hole big enough. Do the cremate cars? </span>
[this post was last edited: 8/27/2017-17:20]
I enjoy the old and new.
My daily driver is a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica that is a comfortable ride and yet serves as a workhorse to schlep my vintage appliances and other collections around.
My occasional drive - during good weather- is my 1964 Dodge 440 sedan which I've had for many years. It has a 318 V-8, push button automatic transmission, power steering and brakes. While it lacks many safety features - it does have seatbelts in the front only - it is still a pleasure to drive and gets over 21 mpg.
My daily driver is a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica that is a comfortable ride and yet serves as a workhorse to schlep my vintage appliances and other collections around.
My occasional drive - during good weather- is my 1964 Dodge 440 sedan which I've had for many years. It has a 318 V-8, push button automatic transmission, power steering and brakes. While it lacks many safety features - it does have seatbelts in the front only - it is still a pleasure to drive and gets over 21 mpg.
amyofescobar
Active member
Just give me a '92 Honda Accord.
twintubdexter
Well-known member
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">Station wagons, once poo-pooed by some collectors, are really coming into their own now. So are cars from the 70's and 80's. It seems that only a few years ago they were just used cars. Maybe it has something to do with my getting older...rapidly.</span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">What a wagon huh? 1959 Mercury from a show in Carmel CA.</span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">What a wagon huh? 1959 Mercury from a show in Carmel CA.</span>
The worst car my family had was a 1970-something LTD wagon.
Station Wagon----Couldn't these be thought of as the first SUV's or "soccer mom" cars?When I was growing up we had a Rambler station wagon and an International Travelall.Don't remember what year they were.Rambler was red-International was white.
speedqueen
Well-known member
I'm a bit of a late comer, but
My current car is a 1975 Cadillac Sedan De Ville. The ride is wonderful, I don't know how those folks lost control in that LTD, cars this long are so predictable when the tail slides out that if you cannot correct it, that is your problem, not the car's. And to 2nd Hans' point about visibility, I can certainly place where the car is. With visibility like this you don't need blind spot monitoring nor rear view cameras. This car has been terrible for reliability though, I think I'm the only person to invest more than a penny into repairs and maintenance in 40 years. I think I'm going to sell it and buy a late '60s Cadillac, when build quality was better. It's a money pit at this point and the body is rusted out, I think it is time to cut my losses.
About the '59 vs '09 crash test, the IIHS cherry picked the '59 to chose the worst car for crash performance made after the 1930s. The '59 chevy used the X frame which was why the '09 caused so much intrusion combined with the fact that the '59 in question was a base model with straight 6 engine that wasn't wide enough to absorb any of the blow. If they used Fords for the comparison the '59 would have fared better as Ford kept the old ladder type frame later. Ford also placed their steering gear behind the axle thus you wouldn't have seen the steering column and dash come inward.
My current car is a 1975 Cadillac Sedan De Ville. The ride is wonderful, I don't know how those folks lost control in that LTD, cars this long are so predictable when the tail slides out that if you cannot correct it, that is your problem, not the car's. And to 2nd Hans' point about visibility, I can certainly place where the car is. With visibility like this you don't need blind spot monitoring nor rear view cameras. This car has been terrible for reliability though, I think I'm the only person to invest more than a penny into repairs and maintenance in 40 years. I think I'm going to sell it and buy a late '60s Cadillac, when build quality was better. It's a money pit at this point and the body is rusted out, I think it is time to cut my losses.
About the '59 vs '09 crash test, the IIHS cherry picked the '59 to chose the worst car for crash performance made after the 1930s. The '59 chevy used the X frame which was why the '09 caused so much intrusion combined with the fact that the '59 in question was a base model with straight 6 engine that wasn't wide enough to absorb any of the blow. If they used Fords for the comparison the '59 would have fared better as Ford kept the old ladder type frame later. Ford also placed their steering gear behind the axle thus you wouldn't have seen the steering column and dash come inward.
Joe, Tony and I used to have an Eldo like yours but with a metal roof. It was a nice car but developed the Northstar curse. The worst car my parents ever owned was a 1984 Mercury Lynx wagon aka Ford Escort. That thing was a lemon from day one. It's also the car that made my dad swear off 4-bangers. He will buy no less than a V6 now. It made my mother never want a FoMoCo product ever again although my dad does drive a Ford Ranger. Mother likes Buicks/Chevys now.
Here's what our previous Lincoln MKS looked like after the altercation with a utility pole. Even as bad as the front was crushed, when I hit the start button, the engine started! Of course it was undriveable.
Here's what our previous Lincoln MKS looked like after the altercation with a utility pole. Even as bad as the front was crushed, when I hit the start button, the engine started! Of course it was undriveable.
norgeway
Well-known member
Ill take a 64 Dodge
Once you take the wheel of a Chrysler product with torsion bar suspension and full time power steering....Nothing else is in the running..In my opinion of course..LOL I love being able to steer and park without any effort.
Once you take the wheel of a Chrysler product with torsion bar suspension and full time power steering....Nothing else is in the running..In my opinion of course..LOL I love being able to steer and park without any effort.
vacerator
Well-known member
If you like cars
then you like cars! Old or new, cars can be fun.
I don't see why it is bad that Fiat SPA owns Chrysler now. They certainly have not hurt them like Daimler or Cerberus did.
Trucks, crossovers, and suv's currently out sell cars. Great Wall of China has expressed interest in purchasing Jeep from Fiat. Sergio Marccioni is retiring in 2018, and would like to close a deal before then. That would boost his departure package quite a bit, as it did for Bob Eaton when Daimler bought Chrysler.
then you like cars! Old or new, cars can be fun.
I don't see why it is bad that Fiat SPA owns Chrysler now. They certainly have not hurt them like Daimler or Cerberus did.
Trucks, crossovers, and suv's currently out sell cars. Great Wall of China has expressed interest in purchasing Jeep from Fiat. Sergio Marccioni is retiring in 2018, and would like to close a deal before then. That would boost his departure package quite a bit, as it did for Bob Eaton when Daimler bought Chrysler.
Greg,
I hope nobody was hurt! Wow! And, yes - that's what I was talking about, the cars today are designed to absorb as much of the energy as possible, leaving the passenger compartment out of it to the greatest extent possible. Crumple zones and designed in 'failure' points, energy absorbing materials, etc.
The Pinto as designed was no more prone to catching on fire than any other car of it's era. It was the last minute changes (a weakness at FORD which also hurt the 64 1/2 Mustang, though in a different way) which caused that vulnerability.
I like my Chrysler Mini-Van, but am so unhappy with the local dealer that if anything major every blew up which required their special equipment, I'd junk it and buy something new from someone else. Anyone else, even sight-unseen off of Craigslist before I'd do business with them.
I hope nobody was hurt! Wow! And, yes - that's what I was talking about, the cars today are designed to absorb as much of the energy as possible, leaving the passenger compartment out of it to the greatest extent possible. Crumple zones and designed in 'failure' points, energy absorbing materials, etc.
The Pinto as designed was no more prone to catching on fire than any other car of it's era. It was the last minute changes (a weakness at FORD which also hurt the 64 1/2 Mustang, though in a different way) which caused that vulnerability.
I like my Chrysler Mini-Van, but am so unhappy with the local dealer that if anything major every blew up which required their special equipment, I'd junk it and buy something new from someone else. Anyone else, even sight-unseen off of Craigslist before I'd do business with them.
Mid-70's Cadillac
We have a '74 waiting on a THM400. Sigh. While the quality is 10^27 better than that of our '89 Fleetwood Brougham d' Elegance (a YUGO was better put together than that piece of trash), there's no doubt that GM had already lost their way. There were still some great cars - the last Fleetwoods of that era were extraordinarily well built by anyone's standards, the '91,'92 and '93 (yes they still were on the market in '93, never mind what some books say) were great cars. Just, '89 and '90 - We spent more time under the hood and under the car and in the trunk than behind the wheel. Trash from start to finish.
We have a '74 waiting on a THM400. Sigh. While the quality is 10^27 better than that of our '89 Fleetwood Brougham d' Elegance (a YUGO was better put together than that piece of trash), there's no doubt that GM had already lost their way. There were still some great cars - the last Fleetwoods of that era were extraordinarily well built by anyone's standards, the '91,'92 and '93 (yes they still were on the market in '93, never mind what some books say) were great cars. Just, '89 and '90 - We spent more time under the hood and under the car and in the trunk than behind the wheel. Trash from start to finish.
warmsecondrinse
Well-known member
Vague recollection of an explanation a friend or I received at some point in the past for '75 more troubleprone than '74 or '76, given that no major modifications took place w/GM mid- and full-sized:
'74 - cars took leaded; emissions solved by higher run temps. Hence original overflow containers replaced by 1 gal clorox bottles. No other problems.
'75 - unleaded required; a slew of new emissions controls implemented; EPA satisfied by all sorts of new tech still effectively in beta stage - multiple problems.
'76 - problems of '75's new tech resolved.
Anyone get a similar explanation?
----------------------
Agreed. 1980's were a decade best forgotten regarding quality control from Detroit products. One notable exception was my parents' 1986 Chrysler LeBaron GTS hatchback. 2.2l turbo I w/less aggressive of the 2 handling packages. ZERO problems until around 185K miles.
----------------------
"The ride is wonderful, I don't know how those folks lost control in that LTD, cars this long are so predictable when the tail slides out that if you cannot correct it, that is your problem, not the car's. And to 2nd Hans' point about visibility, I can certainly place where the car is. With visibility like this you don't need blind spot monitoring nor rear view cameras."
Agree 110%.
-----------------------
I'm with Hans. Those old Chrysler products had the best balance of ride and handling. Effortless steering & parking, pillowy ride, yet you still knew exactly what was going on with all 4 tires at all times.
'74 - cars took leaded; emissions solved by higher run temps. Hence original overflow containers replaced by 1 gal clorox bottles. No other problems.
'75 - unleaded required; a slew of new emissions controls implemented; EPA satisfied by all sorts of new tech still effectively in beta stage - multiple problems.
'76 - problems of '75's new tech resolved.
Anyone get a similar explanation?
----------------------
Agreed. 1980's were a decade best forgotten regarding quality control from Detroit products. One notable exception was my parents' 1986 Chrysler LeBaron GTS hatchback. 2.2l turbo I w/less aggressive of the 2 handling packages. ZERO problems until around 185K miles.
----------------------
"The ride is wonderful, I don't know how those folks lost control in that LTD, cars this long are so predictable when the tail slides out that if you cannot correct it, that is your problem, not the car's. And to 2nd Hans' point about visibility, I can certainly place where the car is. With visibility like this you don't need blind spot monitoring nor rear view cameras."
Agree 110%.
-----------------------
I'm with Hans. Those old Chrysler products had the best balance of ride and handling. Effortless steering & parking, pillowy ride, yet you still knew exactly what was going on with all 4 tires at all times.
Interesting article in the paper the other day . The top selling vehicle in Canada for the past 20 years isn't a car at all, it's the Ford F150 followed by the Honda Civic at #2. The F150 has also been the top selling truck for the past 50 years and unlike the US,, over 50% of Cdn F150's are sold with the V8 compared to just 30% these days in the U.S.
xraytech
Well-known member
Growing up the worst car we had was a 1987 Celebrity Classic sedan with the dreaded 4 cyl engine. It was traded in in early 1992 on a leftover 1991 Cabiler RS sedan. The odd thing I knew several people with Celebrities or the other A-body GM products that were trouble free and all ended up being high mileage cars. They all had either the 2.8 liter v-6 in the Celebrity or the 3.3 litre v-6 in the other models. I eventually owned a 91 Century that other than being bare bones basic was very trouble free
The pic below was exactly like the one we had except ours was gray.
The pic below was exactly like the one we had except ours was gray.
The current issue of Hemmings Classic Cars has an article about the 1957 Oldsmoblie Starfire 98 convertible. My Dads' car was exactly like this one in 1957, only it was black, with a white top. This is the car we drove to Disneyland in in August 1957. It was a beautiful car. We drove the whole way to Anaheim from Richmond, Calif. on old hwy 99 with the top down. I remember that it was hot as hell! My Dad had a Desert Bag tied to the front bumper, in case we overheated far from a service station.
In 1958 when my Dad got his 58' Corvette my Mom got the 57' Olds and his secretary got Mom's 55' turquiose and white 55' Chevrolet Belair HT, a win-win for all concerned.
Here is a photo of Mom standing next to the 57'Olds.
Eddie[this post was last edited: 8/28/2017-13:51]
In 1958 when my Dad got his 58' Corvette my Mom got the 57' Olds and his secretary got Mom's 55' turquiose and white 55' Chevrolet Belair HT, a win-win for all concerned.
Here is a photo of Mom standing next to the 57'Olds.
Eddie[this post was last edited: 8/28/2017-13:51]
lordkenmore
Well-known member
Ah, the Celebrity brings back memories... It was one of the cars I drove in driver's training--and it was probably overall the best of the lot. The Ford Tempo was probably for me hardest to drive--the steering was too sensitive for me--and the Cavalier drove fine (I liked it the best), but was--for the school--a reliability nightmare. (One teacher told me they were due to get a new car the next term, and the Cavalier would go away since it was the oldest car. The moment it went away could not possibly come soon enough for him.)
