Jan Andersson wrote:
> 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.
Mine had a two speed auto too. You're bringing back memories. Some are
fond ones and some aren't.
>> 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.
How many miles are on that 1970 Nova you mentioned above? Getting 100k
miles from the older cars was considered good. Getting 100k miles from
a new car is a given and most likely 200k is more than reasonable.
Plus, the bodies of the new cars have much better rust protection and
the chassis can actually last long enough to run for 200k miles or for
several decades, whichever comes first. The machining tolerances today
are much tighter than they were decades ago which adds to longevity.
Remember back in the day that many engines had to be blueprinted and
balanced to really make high rpm horsepower? Today there are factory
motors spinning to 7k and beyond and lasting for a very long time doing
it.
>> 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
The cars are getting so well made today that many fire and rescue
companies are finding their rescue equipment can't pry the doors lose or
cut through the steel. They have to basically dismantle the car in
order to get to the occupants in many accidents. The formulation of the
steel used in most cars today didn't even exist a decade ago.
>> 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.
Mileage has improved a great deal considering the horsepower produced.
One area I am surprised about it that they haven't made cars
significantly lighter.
>> 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.
I don't obsess over them at all. I just perform basic maintenance.
This is all that is needed to get close to 200k out of about any new car
sold today. When one looks at reliability and longevity there really
isn't much of a gap between vehicles nowadays across all price points.
They all can be run for around 200k or more with basic routine
maintenance. In reality this is more lifespan than 99.9% of the drivers
need or want.
>> 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?
You can find just about whatever performance car you desire today. They
can be inexpensive, basic drive trains, IRS rear wheel drive, four wheel
drive etc. It is all available.
>> 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
:)
.... and a 1960s GTO was really just a Tempest with a few badges and hood
scoop. At least the WRX has some real guts and the bones to make it a
really outstanding performer.
>> 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.
Anyone that doesn't like the new Camaro, Mustang or Challenger but likes
the old muscle cars is just never going to be satisfied, IMO, with
anything new. These cars are good looking and outperform their
predecessors by leaps and bounds. Compare the new ZR1 Vette (Blue Devil
I believe) with ANYTHING in its past and it just literally stomps the
crap out of any previous model.
>> 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 :)
A Mustang GT will meet all of your goals. It is reliable, performs very
well and is reasonably function as a daily driver. Even gas mileage is
decent if you keep your foot out of it. It sounds to me like it is your
personal taste regarding style that makes you dislike the new cars and
not necessarily their engineering and performance.
|
