Michael Johnson wrote:
> 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.
I have a 1970 Nova right now.. 230ci six, 2-speed auto tranny. 4 door
grandma car. Got it cheap, owner said there's nothing wrong with it...
well I found a hole and pieces missing from one piston and another one
headed the same way. The cheapest pistons I found were $8 a piece :D
I didn't get those.
6 new pistons later (and rod bearings, because the op****tunity was
there), it was back on the road. Yes it has some rust issues.
> 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.
Oh yea, I should have mentioned my european origins :) We don't think
very highly of american cars past the early 70's.
> 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.
Which brings me to the point I made earlier: the standards have changed.
Lesser quality has become acceptable, and the norm.
> 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.
All of the above give people a false sense of security, and somehow they
think they can drive like maniacs. (I live in Florida, come see how it
is down here). All the safety equipment and automated functions mean the
driver needs less and less driving skills, and when the time comes when
he needs them, they are not there.
VW studied and designed crumple zones in the 50's. :D
> Getting good mileage with very good performance is
> another perk of applying technology.
Mileage has not improved significantly for decades. Engine efficiency
may have, but the vehicles also got heavier (because of all the extra
junk), so you don't benefit from the efficiency.
> 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.
You sound like a man who takes care of his cars.
> 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.
Kinda nice, but not exciting. I don't have strong feelings either way
about it. Still has solid rear axle, and no independent rear suspension?
No new mustang today has one? Why did they cheap out?
> There are four wheel drive, turbocharged subcompacts that will
> perform as well as Corvettes of just a decade ago.
Yes, I'm still a member of a Subaru club even after selling my turbo
wagon. Friend had a 2004 STi. Nice car, but it too requires some
noticeable upgrades to start working as it 'should'. And at the end, you
still end up with a plastic tub that doesn't look any different from a
Corolla. Except for that god-ugly, ridiculous wing that just has to go :)
> The Camaro is coming back
Disappointed already. It looked ok in the few pics I saw early on, but
something is missing. I like the nose.
> and we have a Challenger on the showroom floors.
That at least looks good. I don't know it well enough to have formed an
opinion yet. I'm worried that they ruined it somehow anyway.
> 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.
Performance isn't everything though. I like it to look good inside and
out, handle well, be functional as a daily driver, and maybe even be
reliable.
Of course my last requirement make the above comnination impossible: I
want it cheap :)
|
