The Old Vs. The New

[White & Nerdy]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think most people who own vehicles don't have the slightest interest in wrenching on them, even if they are automotive enthusiast.

And to that guy who posted about small engines being for girls, thanks for the laugh 👍

Laugh all you want, it's kinda true. If the engine in question is an I4, it's literally, scientifically true.

 

[Joey D]

Laugh all you want, it's kinda true. If the engine in question is an I4, it's literally, scientifically true.

It's not true in anyway, the only people that think a large engine mean manly is seriously lacking something in their life. The size of your engine has nothing to do with how macho you are. I know former Navy SEAL that drives a Dodge Neon, he's more manly than I'll ever be.

 

[Tornado]

It's only cheaper to fix a carbed engine if the engine didn't have some sort of Rube Goldberg system to try to pass the emissions testing of the time it was built (and they only got worse the farther into the 70s and 80s they got). I'd certainly rather eat the cost of new fuel injectors on a Cavalier Z24 and have it run fine for the rest of the time I own it than pay to have the monstrosity of a two barrel carb on a Citation X-11 fixed.

 

[McLaren]

Laugh all you want, it's kinda true. If the engine in question is an I4, it's literally, scientifically true.

Sorry, it's not. There's a fact.

Some moronic scientific study doesn't prove it unless it takes the time to account for every different time of engine noise out there for both genders of various ages. But, that's not going to happen, thus you can stop attempting to fall back on that as way to validate your opinion.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm 185 cm tall. I weigh roughly 95 kg. The most joy I have had in a car that I owned was in this:

600kg. 700cc 2 cylinder powerhouse of a Mickey Mouse vehicle.


Of course, I bought the car to compensate for something.

 

[Doog]

Wut.

Reading this make me want to shoot my foot, or die. New cars? Small, efficient engines? That's something a chick would say. Have fun not being able to work on any of the new cars when all the cheap Chinese plastic 🤬 starts to deteriorate and break off.

In the 70s, driving a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement. So much so that the odometers didn't even have six digits. Now you routinely see new 'cheap Chinese plastic' cars going past 200,000 miles. What does that say about well built those old cars were?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

The three best cars that I've ever driven have been powered by 4-bangers, and I've driven a lot of cars!

 

[Slash]

In the 70s, driving a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement. So much so that the odometers didn't even have six digits. Now you routinely see new 'cheap Chinese plastic' cars going past 200,000 miles. What does that say about well built those old cars were?

Explain to me why my truck has 665,000 on it then. I know thats the right number because the odometer was rigged after it was bought, give or take a few thousand miles.

 

[Antonisbob]

This guy might be my new favorite poster now. Figures he's not one of the "GTP incrowd", he's much too cool for it.

Yea. I just hate new things and don't give a what-what about other's thoughts on my own beliefs, I don't like new cars, I don't like economy cars, small engines, or anything else like that. I scare all the hippies and tree-huggers away when they see my big V8 car comin' down the road blasting Slayer & Master of Puppets. That's just the way I am.

As opposed to the quality materials that were used in the 1970s and early 1980s?

Yea? My vinyl dash has slight cracks, no thanks to our hot semi-dessert environment, but the only thing that I've broken on my car was a plastic door crank knob, everything else on the car works or looks exactly as it did in 1985.

In the 70s, driving a car to 100,000 miles was an achievement. So much so that the odometers didn't even have six digits. Now you routinely see new 'cheap Chinese plastic' cars going past 200,000 miles. What does that say about well built those old cars were?

http://www.stillruns.com/index.php

http://jalopnik.com/398478/woman-drives-1970-camaro-over-one-million-miles-thumbs-nose-at-volvo



http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/pictures/million-mile-club-the-worlds-longest-lived-cars-6#slide-6

When people look after them, they can last much long than 100K.

 

[Slash]

I love you (no homo)^^^^



Thats sort of my point though. The only reason my truck is so rusty now is because we don't drive it anymore. So the moisture from the ground rots it out. It's always been well taken care of and it's cheaper to put another 10 grand into it and get annother 20+ years out of it then buy a new one for $40,000 and get half the life this one has already seen.

On the other hand, a good friend of mine has a, I'll be honest, tired, 1992 Bronco 351 EFI with 330,000 and it runs great and is in awesome shape.

 

[Tornado]

Yea? My vinyl dash has slight cracks, no thanks to our hot semi-dessert environment, but the only thing that I've broken on my car was a plastic door crank knob, everything else on the car works or looks exactly as it did in 1985.

It's was always clear which corners were cut by the bean counters to squeeze a buck even when the manufacturers were living large in the 1970s (especially when it came to GM), and unless you owned a B-Body it always took at least 3 model years for get anything sorted out. Things that used to be steel became plastic. Things that were actual wood became plastic that "looked" like wood. And when they started screwing around with electronic dashboards and power amenities...

 

[Slash]

It's always been clear which corners were cut on by the bean counters to squeeze a buck when the manufacturers were taking a beating in the 1970s (especially when it came to GM), and unless you owned a B-Body it always took at least 3 model years for get anything sorted out. Things that used to be steel became plastic. Things that were actual wood became plastic that "looked" like wood. And when they started screwing around with electronic dashboards and power amenities...

It was new technology at the time. Times have changed. There is plenty of things on the market now that don't work as they are supposed to.

 

[Zenith]

I own an older car. The old parts are more prone to wearing out and breaking. The engineering was just inferior. How many times do modern car owners need to replace shock absorbers? Not as often as much as a 60's car, I can tell you that.

Older cars can be made reliable by replacing old components with modern equivalents. At that point the "less things to go wrong" simplicity becomes a factor, but that's not really relevant. The fact is that technology of 60's cars demanded much more maintenance. Automotive engineers haven't been sitting around for half a century planning the demise of masculinity.

Edit: and Doog's point is right on the money. Many older cars, including mine, have 5 digit odometers. When the engineers who build these things tell you that the car isn't designed to last more than 100,000 miles, you should take the hint.

Beyond small parts wearing out, the entire unibody of my car required straightening and reinforcement for track use. The entire car is rife with cost cutting at the expense of longevity and reliability.

 

[Minty]

http://www.stillruns.com/index.php

That's sure is a well written maintenance log, isn't it?


This is a fun list, too.

I'd quote the whole list but it's fairly massive.

The word of the day is "replaced".

http://jalopnik.com/398478/woman-drives-1970-camaro-over-one-million-miles-thumbs-nose-at-volvo

Another link in that article:http://www.superchevy.com/features/camaro/sucp_0807_1970_ss350_camaro/
"Emma chalks up regular oil changes every 3,000 miles, routine tune-ups, and a trip to the mechanic every time she hears an odd noise"

"Since then he's rebuilt the engine, and transmission, and made full use of the lifetime warranties on nearly every other part"



You're not exactly doing your argument any favors with these links if "taking care of" means replacing anything you think might go wrong at some point in the near future, up to and including rebuilding the engine.

 

[Slash]

^^^Have you ever heard of something called regular maintenance? Of course things are going to wear out, that happens on every car.

 

[Doog]

^^^Have you ever heard of something called regular maintenance?

There's regular maintenance, and there's obsessive maintenance. All those million mile cars Anton linked have had the latter. New cars can go to 200,000 miles before you actually have to start paying attention to serious stuff.

 

[Minty]

^^^Have you ever heard of something called regular maintenance? Of course things are going to wear out, that happens on every car.

I wasn't aware rebuilding the entire engine was considered regular maintenance.....

Also,

This is a fun list, too.

"Drive shaft: U-joints welded in place to prevent them from falling out. This model of Impala has what they call a non-rebuildable drive shaft. They say it's never supposed to need overhaul. Well I did it! Unfortunately, the next time I have u-joint trouble down there, I must buy a whole new drive shaft."

Yep. Just...regular maintenance, right?

 

[Slash]

I wasn't aware rebuilding the entire engine was considered regular maintenance.....

Also,


"Drive shaft: U-joints welded in place to prevent them from falling out. This model of Impala has what they call a non-rebuildable drive shaft. They say it's never supposed to need overhaul. Well I did it! Unfortunately, the next time I have u-joint trouble down there, I must buy a whole new drive shaft."

Yep. Just...regular maintenance, right?

Things wear out after 30 years of abuse. Lets see a modern car last that long. I see 10 year old vehicles on the road today in very bad shape, worse than some cars of the '70s that were driven daily. Very little underneath our truck was ever replaced because it needed it, and what was replaced was replaced because we wanted to upgraded it, not because it was bad. Plus it's got an engine in it 10 years older than the vehicle itself. In fact it had 2 of them, and an I6 that is WELL KNOWN to have 500k alone on it with just an oil change. Go on, question the reliability of a 300 I6. That motor is amazing.

 

[Doog]

Things wear out after 30 years of abuse. Lets see a modern car last that long. I see 10 year old vehicles on the road today in very bed shape, worse than some cars of the '70s that were driven daily.

Drivers of '70s cars tend to be enthusiasts who are obsessive about maintenance. Drivers of 10 year old cars in very bad shape are just run of the mill drivers who do basic maintenance for 200,000 miles.

 

[Slash]

Drivers of '70s cars tend to be enthusiasts who are obsessive about maintenance. Drivers of 10 year old cars in very bad shape are just run of the mill drivers who do basic maintenance for 200,000 miles.

I'm talking about average drivers who do what they need to to get by. For example the '76 Mach 1 I've been looking at is in amazing shape for it's age and was daily driven for years. Never had much done to it.

 

[McLaren]

Thats sort of my point though. The only reason my truck is so rusty now is because we don't drive it anymore. So the moisture from the ground rots it out. It's always been well taken care of and it's cheaper to put another 10 grand into it and get annother 20+ years out of it then buy a new one for $40,000 and get half the life this one has already seen.

On the other hand, a good friend of mine has a, I'll be honest, tired, 1992 Bronco 351 EFI with 330,000 and it runs great and is in awesome shape.

Really bad argument considering you have absolutely zero way of telling that new car won't live half as long. Odds are, esp. with new trucks, they can outlive older trucks. But, that's because they are built to do so.

^^^Have you ever heard of something called regular maintenance? Of course things are going to wear out, that happens on every car.

What part of this are you failing to comprehend?

Because of the quality of materials, under equal use, even from new, the old car will wear out first because the parts are not made to last 60-100,000 miles as they are designed to on new cars.

 

[Slash]

Really bad argument considering you have absolutely zero way of telling that new car won't live half as long.

What part of this are you failing to comprehend?

Because of the quality of materials, under equal use, even from new, the old car will wear out first because the parts are not made to last 60-100,000 miles as they are designed to on new cars.

I work in a shop. 99% of the stuff that comes in is in rough shape and it ain't that old. The older stuff that comes in is usually in decent shape.I don't trust any of the new stuff to last as long, especially when everything is made out of cheap plastic garbage. Our old truck goes just fine and arguably rides smoother because of the weight. Why do you think people like the '70s trucks from any brand? Because they were built better, stronger and they were built to last. I hardly see any new trucks on the road that are 8 lugs anymore, most are 5 or 6 even on 4x4s. Whatever happened to galvanized body panels, Dana axles and Spicer ball joints, amazing transmissions, and the 2"-3" thick, solid frames underneath them? When you could jump the things really high, take them off road, haul more weight than they were designed for and generally beat the hell out of them and not worry that something was going to break? My back axle has never been opened. It's held much more weight that it was designed to and it was perfectly fine. Try hauling 37,000 pounds with a new truck and see how far you get with a bumper mounted hitch. Theres videos on YouTube of older trucks doing it and doing it with a grin despite only being rated with a max capacity of around 16,500.

Why did so many manufacturers produce the same engine for 40+ years and most still offer them on their racing websites? Does that not count as reliable? 350's, 351's, 454's, 460's, 318's etc were all produced for a very long producing run. Hell, some of Ford's motors even out-lived their replacements. You don't see that now either...it's a different motor every few years.

Most of the materials in our older stuff were great. I would say a lot of the materials were built stronger. They might be heavier, but stronger. I would not hesitate to beat the vehicles and take them through 15 foot mud pits were as something out now I'm scared to go through a puddle on the road with it.

Hell I've got a snowblower from 1974 that runs like it's new and the only thing it's ever had done was the routine belt replacement every few seasons and a new carb. Mind you, the old one lasted all those years. The top end has never been off it. It has never been taken apart. Nothing, nothing is built like it used to be. My 1985 Honda ATC 200X three wheeler runs like it's brand new, rides like new, and that thing has countless hours and miles on it, hell it even looks relatively new minus the loose chain, mildly sun faded plastics and the split fork boots whilst being covered in mud. Compare that to the 2004 go-kart I got brand new from a raffle, and within 2 years the clutch started slipping. I was pretty pissed.

When we got out 2009 Focus, I hated the ride quality. The seats were uncomfortable and thing was really stiff and I could feel everything in the road. Took a ride in my friends Mustang and it was a totally different story. Seats were really soft and squishy, the thing felt light on it's feet and road great.

The point is I don't believe new stuff lasts as long or was built with as good of quality as things before my time. Simply because I work with this stuff daily, I've come to this conclusion. This is sort of the reason why I prefer the older stuff, besides the obviously styling differences that I've grown to love. I will agree that even though technology wasn't quite as advanced, sometimes keeping things simple is better. I will also accept that not everything produced back then was great, but there was definitely some big highlights that a lot of you are not giving credit to.

 

[Zenith]

To those with reverence for the quality of old cars, what makes you think that the car companies during the 60's were any less interested in minimizing production costs than modern car companies?

As an example, the weather sealing on my car's floor was applied by factory workers on a production line. The sealant in my car missed the crack it was supposed to seal almost entirely. How can you expect cars to last so much longer when quality control was so dismal?

Simply put, old cars were wear items made out of wear items. The only way to make one last without extremely regular maintenance (the entire point of this discussion) is to handle it like its made of glass. Even then you'll need a service interval more often than modern cars.

 

[Slash]

To those with reverence for the quality of old cars, what makes you think that the car companies during the 60's were any less interested in minimizing production costs than modern car companies?

As an example, the weather sealing on my car's floor was applied by factory workers on a production line. The sealant in my car missed the crack it was supposed to seal almost entirely. How can you expect cars to last so much longer when quality control was so dismal?

Simply put, old cars were wear items made out of wear items. The only way to make one last without extremely regular maintenance (the entire point of this discussion) is to handle it like its made of glass. Even then you'll need a service interval more often than modern cars.

We never did. It needs body work now because it hasn't been driven daily in 6 years and has sat over a stone driveway but otherwise never needed anything because something failed. The only thing I can think of that failed was the front driveshaft and that only happened because we let a bad U-joint go to long. The thing is almost 30 years old now. It was kept nice in it's early years because my father wanted to, not because it needed it.

 

[Tornado]

It was new technology at the time. Times have changed. There is plenty of things on the market now that don't work as they are supposed to.

Not that many domestic cars of the 70s were innovative to begin with. The Pacer, sure; though they were hurt pretty badly by lack of money when developing it. The '77 Caprice? Eh, that's pushing it, but sure. The rest of them were usually a bunch of carryover ideas from the latter half of the 1960s, wrapped up in increasingly heavy and increasingly cheaply made bodies; with less and less effort put into the engineering of them as the decade wore on.


It wasn't new technology that dropped the Volare and Aspen on dealer lots before Chrysler was actually done designing them even though the Dart/Valiant they were built off of were still selling hundreds of thousands of cars a year. It wasn't new technology that made it so the Vega's engine would explode for practically no reason, then rust into the ground while it sat in a mechanic yard waiting to be fixed. It wasn't new technology that led GM to be laughably cynical with their car badging after spending the previous 20 years taking great pains to actually separate their vehicles from one another in engineering. It wasn't new technology that led to Ford doing the same thing, pissing away the decade that they had built themselves up as the best by throwing some leather around a Ford Grenada and selling it on the same lot as the Continental Mark V. It wasn't new technology that unleashed the Oldsmobile diesel on American buyers. It wasn't new technology that added hundreds of pounds and several feet of length to already-large cars to chase an ever fleeting concept of luxury; covering up in some cases 20 year old car designs with thicker carpeting and brighter red seats. There was a "Brougham" version of the Valiant, for crying out loud.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

When we got out 2009 Focus, I hated the ride quality. The seats were uncomfortable and thing was really stiff and I could feel everything in the road. Took a ride in my friends Mustang and it was a totally different story. Seats were really soft and squishy, the thing felt light on it's feet and road great.

Hang on, you're comparing older cars to a 2009 Focus? Of course they're better, that's a terrible car. Compare your 60's and 70's cars to something like a Volkswagen Golf or Honda Accord and then we'll talk.

 

[Slash]

Not that many domestic cars of the 70s were innovative to begin with. The Pacer, sure; though they were hurt pretty badly by lack of money when developing it. The '77 Caprice? Eh, that's pushing it, but sure. The rest of them were usually a bunch of carryover ideas from the latter half of the 1960s, wrapped up in increasingly heavy and increasingly cheaply made bodies; with less and less effort put into the engineering of them as the decade wore on.


It wasn't new technology that made the dropped the Volare and Aspen on dealer lots before Chrysler was actually done designing them even though the Dart/Valiant they were built off of were still selling hundreds of thousands of cars a year. It wasn't new technology that made it so the Vega's engine would explode for practically no reason, then rust into the ground while it sat in a mechanic yard waiting to be fixed. It wasn't new technology that led GM to be laughably cynical with their car badging after spending the previous 20 years taking great pains to actually separate their vehicles from one another in engineering. It wasn't new technology that led to Ford doing the same thing, pissing away the decade that they had built themselves up as the best by throwing some leather around a Ford Grenada and selling it on the same lot as the Continental Mark V. It wasn't new technology that unleashed the Oldsmobile diesel on American buyers. It wasn't new technology that added hundreds of pounds and several feet of length to already-large cars to chase an ever fleeting concept of luxury; covering up in some cases 20 year old car designs with thicker carpeting and brighter red seats. There was a "Brougham" version of the Valiant, for crying out loud.

Everything has it's ups and downs doesn't it.

Hang on, you're comparing older cars to a 2009 Focus? Of course they're better, that's a terrible car. Compare your 60's cars to something like a Volkswagen Golf or Honda Accord and then we'll talk.

Because those are any better (I feel a hate train coming ). Want to buy me one? I'll gladly do a comparison.

That said I've worked on a lot of new stuff and I just do not like them for many reasons. They blow to work on, you can't get to hardly anything that you need to replace, the electrical and computer systems are a nightmare, especially when having to reset things by driving 100 miles or having the computer mess up because a tire pressure sensor in one tire got stuck in the wrong wheel well. I find the old ones more visually appealing, easier to work on, and I think they are just better overall (excluding safety features). I understand that the new stuff is supposed to aid the driver and provide more convenience but when something goes it is a royal pain in the ass to do anything with them. Seriously, who ever though of mounting an alternator down on the bottom side of a side mounted engine way back next to the firewall with about 1 inch to get your hand halfway down in there and cant even fit a socket on a bolt to pulling the mounting bracket off? Much easier up front on a length wise mounted engine...

Yeah sorry I find this much easier to work on:

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Because those are any better (I feel a hate train coming ). Want to buy me one?

Yes, they are. They're much, much, much better than the Focus. Car and Driver thought that that Focus was so bad that ina comparison test, the last sentence was "what are they thinking?"

This car raises a single question over and over: “What are they thinking?” With the chrome gills pasted on the fenders? With the imitation-leather look of the leather seats? With the tin-box flatness of the sheetmetal between the taillights? With the overly knobbed and overly buttoned center stack that glows blue at night like the interior of a vodka bar?

If you can get past the presentation, this Ford, rehabbed for 2008, is a willing performer. Acceleration is midpack, fuel economy is third best on our test run, it rides smoothly, and it aced the lane-change test. On the other hand, stopping from 70 mph required 203 feet, the weakest showing here by far.

It has an American-style driver’s seat. That means a wide, flat cushion for those whose buns are now loaves. The door and the center armrests are slightly soft to the elbows; the console has two generous cup holders, and there’s another in each front door along with a map pocket. However, Ford’s efforts to overamp a portfolio of gimmicky details—especially the clunky-chunky dial markings and the glut of techno trickery, including the voice-activated Sync system—seem misplaced when many normally expected automotive features are missing. Why no back-seat headrests? No door pockets in back, either, and only the right front seat has a pocket on the back side. And don’t bother reaching for a grab handle over any door.

Rear passengers will find excellent foot space. The seat cushion is high and firm. But adding a center passenger back there pushes the others into the low-head-clearance zones.

Imagine our joy, however, when we discovered we could adjust the lighting in the cup holders and foot wells through seven different colors. Oddly, there’s also a beacon down by the gas pedal that shines the chosen color up into the driver’s eyes.

What are they thinking?

If you don't believe me.

 

[Minty]

I work in a shop. 99% of the stuff that comes in is in rough shape and it ain't that old. The older stuff that comes in is usually in decent shape.

Your argument kinda falls apart here, when you realize that...

Drivers of '70s cars tend to be enthusiasts who are obsessive about maintenance. Drivers of 10 year old cars in very bad shape are just run of the mill drivers who do basic maintenance for 200,000 miles.

If all of these cars that sold many thousands of models were so unbreakable, where are they all now, and why do the few of them we actually see seem in pretty good shape? Because the ones that weren't meticulously maintained were all either trashed after something broke, or parted out to the people who perform more than "regular maintenance.


I'd have to guess that when something as major as dropping a drive shaft happens, most drivers are going to just go ahead and replace the car.

 

[Slash]

Your argument kinda falls apart here, when you realize that...



If all of these cars that sold many thousands of models were so unbreakable, where are they all now, and why do the few of them we actually see seem in pretty good shape? Because the ones that weren't meticulously maintained were all either trashed, or parted out to the people who perform more than "regular maintenance.

New things come out and people get bored of what they have. It's that simple. Drive a car for 30 years and tell me you don't want something else after that long.

I'd have to guess that when something as major as dropping a drive shaft happens, most drivers are going to just go ahead and replace the car.

I don't consider that a major replacement.

Yes, they are. Car and Driver thought that that Focus was so bad that ina comparison test, the last sentence was "what are they thinking?"



If you don't believe me.

I don't own one of those vehicles so I can't comment on them.