The Old Vs. The New

[Tornado]

The S-10 Blazer and downsized Powerstroke-era Super Duty are both pretty awful examples to use for why new cars are better than old ones.

Lol. A manufacturer would be really stupid to give out a test showing that their 50 year old cars are stronger than their new ones.

Crash tests of cars from the 1970s are not very difficult to come by:



The only thing is that most people recognize today being able to drive away from an accident with barely any damage is not actually a beneficial quality.

 

[Slash]

The S-10 Blazer and 6.0 Powerstroke-era Super Duty are both pretty awful examples to use for why new cars are better than old ones.


Crash tests of cars from the 1970s are not very difficult to come by:



The only thing is that most people recognize today being able to drive away from an accident with barely any damage is not actually a beneficial quality.

Cheaper to fix isn't it? What's to fix if there's no damage

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Slashfan, the older cars you see come through the shop (the ones in such great shape) are the only ones left. They are still existing because they have been diligently cared for. Here is the condition of most cars from the 70s:

Cheaper to fix isn't it? What's to fix if there's no damage

I'd rather fix a car than my brain.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Though, sometimes I wonder, even though in theory and tests these "advancements" if you will, actually work in the field as good as they are supposed to or seem to in or during testing stages.

They work a damn sight better than the unpredictability of where a solid metal box will crumple during a crash.

Lol. A manufacturer would be really stupid to give out a test showing that their 50 year old cars are stronger than their new ones.

Stronger? In some cases. Safer? No. In a crash you don't want a strong car, you want a safe car. Humans are soft and squishy and have organs that, in the event of a crash, keep travelling inside of the body even after the body itself has stopped.

The more abrupt the impact, the faster and further those organs travel, and the more risk that severe trauma will be caused. The same energy that causes that trauma can be greatly reduced by a car that has been designed to crumple in a safe, predictable way, has seatbelts to limit the acceleration of the body (the further the body can travel and accelerate immediately after an impact, the more energy there will be to disperse once the body hits something solid, such as the dash or windscreen) and airbags (again, to limit the distance the head can move and accelerate, therefore limiting the energy that needs dispersed once the head hits something solid).

 

[Slash]

Slashfan, the older cars you see come through the shop (the ones in such great shape) are the only ones left. They are still existing because they have been diligently cared for. Here is the condition of most cars from the 70s:

Same will apply to most everything you see on the road now in about 15 years.

They work a damn sight better than the unpredictability of where a solid metal box will crumple during a crash.

It's pretty straightforward where the metal is going to crumple when you get hit by another car.

 

[Joel]

What's to fix if there's no damage

You?

I'd rather have to pay to fix my car than die...

 

[Slash]

You?

I'd rather have to pay to fix my car than die...

As I've said before, I'm not disagreeing that modern cars are more safe. I agree with you all there.

 

[Minty]

Cheaper to fix isn't it? What's to fix if there's no damage

Um....the people in the car?

As I've said before, I'm not disagreeing that modern cars are more safe. I agree with you all there.

But you keep making posts about older cars being better because they can take hits like that.

How does less safe = better?

I don't think the rear axle in that truck can hold that kind of weight. The engine doesn't have enough balls to spin the tires with 37,000lbs over it, let alone with any "real" weight over it, and if you can get it moving you're going to have a lot of wheel hop. Stock tires or replacements are not rated for that kind of weight. Put that much weight over the rear end of that truck and you will:

A: Break an axle/leaf springs/shocks
B: Rip the hitch off the frame
C: Lift the front end of the truck 20 feet in the air
D: Pop the tires
E: All of the above

I'm gonna go ahead and guess the weight is distributed. The entirety of that 35,000lbs isn't resting on your truck. I'm thinking would flatten it even if you put it directly over the frame.

The S-10 Blazer and downsized Powerstroke-era Super Duty are both pretty awful examples to use for why new cars are better than old ones.

Yeah, probably. I think I've just gotten lucky with mine...

The rest of the truck and the frame are still good, though.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

This thread will drive me insane with some of the drivel I'm reading. Someone educate these people!

 

[Tornado]

Same will apply to most everything you see on the road now in about 15 years.

That didn't hold true for cars in the 1980s, and I don't see why it would for cars of the 1990s or 2000s. Cars from the 70s rotted off the roads almost as soon as they were replaced. How many hundreds of thousands of Darts and Valiants and Novas and Monte Carlos and Cordobas (and even Japanese cars, for that matter. Infamy of rusting Datsuns abound) were manufactured each year, and how many were still around ten years ago?

And while all but the most babied of Citations are now gone, there are still tons of first generation Cavaliers running around in various states of tune; nevermind the bucketloads of Chevrolet Celebritys and Corsicas that you always see in Wal-Mart parking lots and high school student areas. And jumping into the 90s, I'm not entirely sure that there will ever be a date in the future where you won't see a Lumina of some vintage putting around. That's just Chevys; and while Fords and Chryslers of that vintage didn't tend to hold up as well (especially Tauruses lunching transmissions), there are still plenty of 80's Sables and first generation Chrysler minivans to be seen.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

It's pretty straightforward where the metal is going to crumple when you get hit by another car.

Not if the car isn't designed to crumple. One day you'll hit something with so much force that the frame will fracture, or the engine mounts will give, and you'll have some unwelcome metal visitors in your nice cosy cabin.

EDIT: On the subject of towing, my Defender 110 2.8TD has towed a 44 ton articulated truck in snow before. The maximum tow weight for it is 3.5 tons.

 

[Slash]

Um....the people in the car?


But you keep making posts about older cars being better because they can take hits like that.

How does less safe = better?

Just because they were made better/last longer doesn't mean they were renowned for amazing safety features, even I know that. Though I have heard stories of people owing their lives to large cars.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess the weight is distributed. The entirety of that 35,000lbs isn't resting on your truck. I'm thinking would flatten it even if you put it directly over the frame.


Yeah, probably. I think I've just gotten lucky with mine...

The F-250 is 3/4 ton truck. Max bed capacity. I've had 2 tons or pure ledge rock in ours. Yeah it was tough to turn but even going over soft grass in my yard over a leach field with all that weight was easy, and it only had 1 ton rated 33x12.5 tires on it. That said, it's hauled however many countless truck fulls of dirt, stone, wet logs etc. Bed and everything underneath is in perfect shape. I could not ask for a more reliable, and quite frankly, amazing vehicle.

Not if the car isn't designed to crumple. One day you'll hit something with so much force that the frame will fracture, or the engine mounts will give, and you'll have some unwelcome metal visitors in your nice cosy cabin.

Which is partly the reason engines are angled, sometimes up to 45*, down to go underneath the cabin in the event of a crash. I know if you look at the bay of our truck the engine is noticeably pointed down.

EDIT: On the subject of towing, my Defender 110 2.8TD has towed a 44 ton articulated truck in snow before. The maximum tow weight for it is 3.5 tons.

I believe it. Bet you weren't going to win any races though

 

[White & Nerdy]

*snip*

Did... did you just say something positive about the J-body? Even though it has hard touch plastic in it?

 

[Swara]

We need to consider two things in mind here.

One, old cars didn't have safely as the number one priority. Times were different then.

Two, new cars DO have safety as the number one priority. One thing is for sure though, old cars had more "potential" for engine modifications.

So, basically, when you juxtapose time and the car, it is really the needs based upon that time period. Though I'd prefer a 69 Mustang over a new model Mustang everyday.

 

[Tornado]

I have been known to say positive things about the cars that my father owned in the past while I was growing up, if for no other reason than I refuse to believe he would ever buy a true lemon; but I wouldn't consider "Cavaliers haven't all rotted into the ground like the Citations did" to be that positive in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Slash]

Old cars had more "potential" for engine modifications.

And many were simple enough that even an idiot could figure out how to change something if he looked at it long enough. I look at engines know and my mind goes:

 

[michrulejj]

I think also what they meant was stronger by older cars last longer, and which they do.

Its America home of big motors and low MPG. I personally do not care if my car is green or not,

Also I know from experience that older cars are a lot more cheaper and potent to do engine mod's to gain performance. From working on a 350 and getting parts on that compared to LS1.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Exactly. This discussion kinda reminds me of trying to replace the alternator on my Sunbird - a transverse mounted V6 in a FWD car is already cramped, but the difficulty of doing anything in that car's engine bay becomes infuriating when you realize a lot of the stuff that's in your way is either a. not related to the engine at all, or b. computer/pollution control stuff not technically essential to making a car move.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Which is partly the reason engines are angled, sometimes up to 45*, down to go underneath the cabin in the event of a crash. I know if you look at the bay of our truck the engine is noticeably pointed down.

Once the engine is free from its mounts, who knows where it will end up? I'd rather not find out!

I believe it. Bet you weren't going to win any races though

She was crabbing beautifully, and even bounced backwards as she took up the weight. I only did it to try to kill her, but the silly old thing doesn't want to give it up.

I only mentioned this because what your video of the F250 shows is nothing special. An M-61 is only a 5 ton truck, and pulling at those speeds isn't causing much stress on the vehicle providing you're in the right gear.

 

[Downhill Dino]

I think also what they meant was stronger by older cars last longer, and which they do. You don't see a modern car still running 20 years later.

Because it hasn't been 20 years yet? If you mean modern by 2000+.

 

[lvl1dnIghT7un3R]

And many were simple enough that even an idiot could figure out how to change something if he looked at it long enough. I look at engines know and my mind goes:

👍 Todays cars are all controlled by computers and have all this wiring. Older cars are so much simpler.

Manufacturers today put sensors in cars so when you crash, data gets sent to the manufacturer so they can study it and improve their car design. Who knows what else they can be tracking

 

[Minty]

I think also what they meant was stronger by older cars last longer, and which they do. You don't see a modern car still running 20 years later.

...

just think about that for a second.

 

[Tornado]

Two, new cars DO have safety as the number one priority. One thing is for sure though, old cars had more "potential" for engine modifications.

A lot of that potential, in the 1970s in particular, was because they took fundamentally decent (albeit somewhat dated) engine designs and beat the hell out of them in regards to fuel delivery, exhaust and compression until they were about as powerful and efficient as the much more primitive designs from 25 years prior.

Manufacturers today put sensors in cars so when you crash, data gets sent to the manufacturer so they can study it and improve their car design. Who knows what else they can be tracking

They're working with Microsoft, I'm sure. An Xbone in every vehicle!

 

[Slash]

I think also what they meant was stronger by older cars last longer, and which they do. You don't see a modern car still running 20 years later.

Its America home of big motors and low MPG. I personally do not care if my car is green or not,

Also I know from experience that older cars are a lot more cheaper and potent to do engine mod's to gain performance. From working on a 350 and getting parts on that compared to LS1.

This.

Exactly. This discussion kinda reminds me of trying to replace the alternator on my Sunbird - a transverse mounted V6 in a FWD car is already cramped, but the difficulty of doing anything in that car's engine bay becomes infuriating when you realize a lot of the stuff that's in your way is either a. not related to the engine at all, or b. computer/pollution control stuff not technically essential to making a car move.

This is what I was trying to point out earlier in one of my posts.

Once the engine is free from its mounts, who knows where it will end up? I'd rather not find out!

Usually where it was intended to I guess it really depends on the circumstances of the crash though.

She was crabbing beautifully, and even bounced backwards as she took up the weight. I only did it to try to kill her, but the silly old thing doesn't want to give it up.

You have got to love those stubborn little things

I only mentioned this because what your video of the F250 shows is nothing special. An M-61 is only a 5 ton truck, and pulling at those speeds isn't causing much stress on the vehicle providing you're in the right gear.

Then again, you don't see new people willingly abuse new cars like that, and most of the people I know won't even attempt it in fear that something will break.

Because it hasn't been 20 years yet? If you mean modern by 2000+.

Had a friend who had a newer '08 Ram and the engine was knocking less than 80,000 miles after he bought it new.

👍 Todays cars are all controlled by computers and have all this wiring. Older cars are so much simpler.

Manufacturers today put sensors in cars so when you crash, data gets sent to the manufacturer so they can study it and improve their car design. Who knows what else they can be tracking

I agree, everything was so much simpler. Which is why I prefer them.

Those are for good reason and I can see why but true. You never know.

A lot of that potential, in the 1970s in particular, was because they took fundamentally decent (albeit somewhat dated) engine designs and beat the hell out of them in regards to fuel delivery, exhaust and compression until they were about as powerful and efficient as the much more primitive designs from 25 years prior.

Exactly. '80s included.

They're working with Microsoft, I'm sure. An Xbone in every vehicle!

This is a good watch, some very good reasons (though not all of them) as to why I like older cars.

 

[Swara]

Also, older model cars have longer-lasting parts...not cheap plastic engine parts car manufacturers started installing after the year 2000.

 

[lvl1dnIghT7un3R]

Also, older model cars have longer-lasting parts...not cheap plastic engine parts car manufacturers started installing after the year 2000.

Yeah, they put cheap parts so customers go to repair, giving more money to manufacturer.

 

[Downhill Dino]

Also, older model cars have longer-lasting parts...not cheap plastic engine parts car manufacturers started installing after the year 2000.

That's quite the general statement which means you'll need proof. 👍 Also, everything is plastic these days apparently.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

We need to consider two things in mind here.

One, old cars didn't have safely as the number one priority. Times were different then.

Two, new cars DO have safety as the number one priority. One thing is for sure though, old cars had more "potential" for engine modifications.

So, basically, when you juxtapose time and the car, it is really the needs based upon that time period. Though I'd prefer a 69 Mustang over a new model Mustang everyday.

I don't agree with this at all. Especially with modern forced induction cars, massive power is just a few simple parts away.

As an example, 03/04 Cobra already makes a pretty healthy ~360whp (390bhp) stock, but with a supercharger pulley, a few simple bolt-ons, and a dyno tune, they can make over 500bhp. And that's simple stuff.

Want more extensive modifications? I'd love to see a 2 liter engine from the 1970s do this:

 

[Slash]

Also, older model cars have longer-lasting parts...not cheap plastic engine parts car manufacturers started installing after the year 2000.

This.

Yeah, they put cheap parts so customers go to repair, giving more money to manufacturer.

This again.

That's quite the general statement which means you'll need proof. 👍 Also, everything is plastic these days apparently.

All you need to do is look at some pictures on Google images my friend.

I don't agree with this at all. Especially with modern forced induction cars, massive power is just a few simple parts away.

True but the older engines can also make good power for not a lot of money. As a personal preference, I prefer N/A over forced induction any day.

As an example, 03/04 Cobra already makes a pretty healthy ~360whp (390bhp) stock, but with a supercharger pulley, a few simple bolt-ons, and a dyno tune, they can make over 500bhp. And that's simple stuff.

Low compression 302 + supercharger and be done with it.

Want more extensive modifications? I'd love to see a 2 liter engine from the 1970s do this:

I'm not sure about 900 horsepower but I've seen a lot of Ford 2.3L 4 pots up in the 550-600 horsepower range. Of course these engines are completely unstreetable.

 

[Downhill Dino]

All you need to do is look at some pictures on Google images my friend.

A select few cases does not make it 100% of the parts.