Jan Andersson wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Jan Andersson wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>
>> I can't agree with you on this. The new cars we can buy today are
>> light years ahead of the old ones of my youth. Back then you were
>> lucky the car wasn't a complete buck of rust by 100,000 miles. In
>> fact, having an engine last 100,000 miles was not the norm.
>> Maintenance was much more intensive, mileage worse and
>> performance/reliability not even close to the cars we have today.
>> Most cars sold now can easily hit 100k miles and many are good for
>> close to 200k miles if they are maintained well. Compare the current
>> Mustang GT to just about any early Mustang and the difference is night
>> and day regarding performance and reliability.
>
>
> Most of the 80's cars are now gone. 70's cars are disappearing too. But
> there's still 60's cars around, and even when not maintained very well,
> are still kicking.
>
> More maintenance? Old cars had 99% LESS parts that could go wrong.
> Today, Microsoft is making operating systems for cars, fer chrissakes :D
There a few advantages to lower tech cars but they are far outweighed by
the advantages this technology brings regarding efficiency, longevity,
reliability, performance and convenience to modern vehicles.
> If you have a mechanical fuel pump, a carburator, a basic points & coil
> kettering ignition, and a simple generator or an alternator even, you
> were good to go. What else could go wrong?
My first car ws a 1971 Nova with a 250 CI inline six. It was about as
simple as they came. I had plenty of issues with it. Before it hit
100k miles it was rusting through, I rebuilt the head, it was a constant
battle to keep it in a good state of tune and the gas mileage wasn't all
that great. It was fairly reliable though and never left me stranded
anywhere.
> Case example 1: The VW Beetle. Not the plastic Golf IV in drag, but the
> real thing. 100k miles easy. 200k miles not uncommon. Heck, even a
> poorly maintained piece of 1970 junk 1500 I had, made it past 250k, and
> was finally laid to rest due to rust holes in the floorpan. The engine
> lived on in another car. There were no signs of anyone ever rebuilding
> it. (Every nut and bolt were rusted solid).
>
> Case example 2: Well, this is an exception from the 80:s. The Mercedes.
> Not uncommon at all to hear them go a MILLION miles. Granted, that would
> usually mean an engine and tranny rebuild at some point.
>
> 3: Volvo has had models that easily made 500k and even close to a
million.
>
> 4: Even my friend's Mitsubi**** Lancer from the 80's got past 500k.
Many foreign cars were built better than domestics. Especially after
WWII. The same still applies though that the modern versions of these
cars are much better in almost every way.
> Come to the 90's, and I don't think they could. 2000, and I'm pretty
> certain we won't see 'million mile' cars anymore. Mercedes quality has
> gone down the drain years ago, they're living off of their legacy and
> deserved good name they got in the years past.
The fact is 99.99% of driver wouldn't want to keep a car for a million
miles so that benchmark isn't worth much. It would take a person over
66 years to put that many miles on a car driving at a rate of 15,000
miles per year. Who would want to drive the same car for 66 years?
Your definition of quality is very narrow and when that definition is
broadened the new cars stack up very well against their predecessors.
> Modern cars are packed full of useless junk that not only creates more
> need for maintenance and potential breakdowns, it alienates the operator
> from actual driving skills, and makes him a passenger with no brains,
> rather than a driver.
Once again I disagree. When I look at the crash worthiness of new cars
I am amazed at their quality. Having air bags, self tensioning seat
belts, crumple zones, roll over protection etc. is invaluable, IMO.
Having the ability for a third party to know if you have crashed on a
deserted road and being able to send help directly to your location is a
wonderful thing. Getting good mileage with very good performance is
another perk of applying technology.
We have had very good reliability from the newer cars. The '94 T-Bird
we had went 190k miles until our son totaled it. I have a '94 Explorer
with 186k miles that is still going strong. The 2003 Sable we have has
90k miles and has been nearly trouble free. It also delivers great
performance from its 3.0L DOHC V-6. It handles fairly well too. It is
an all around great car and we paid $18k for it brand new and it has
leather interior, sunroof and every option available for that year.
> I'm just ranting I guess, you do have a point.
>
> I'm just so tired of where the industry has gone and how unexciting cars
> have become. I can't remember seeing a new car that made me think : WOW,
> I gotta get me one of those. I get that with cars older than myself.
> (I'm a kiddie though, only 35)
There are plenty of exciting cars for sale. There are performance
models of all varieties. Look at the GT500. It has more performance
than ANY Mustang ever produced and it is for sale TODAY, not during the
1960s. There are four wheel drive, turbocharged subcompacts that will
perform as well as Corvettes of just a decade ago. The Camaro is coming
back and we have a Challenger on the showroom floors. I think if you
look around you will find a lot of performance and at all price points.
Heck, even the current base Mustang has the same horsepower level as
the old 5.0L Fox cars.
|
