Michael Johnson wrote:
>> 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?
Don't know. Too lazy to go look and I think the odometer rolls over at
99.999? Hmm. That would be an indicator that not much more was expected
of them... lol
Still, 38 years old and still runs ok and looks half decent. Everything
works. (after the piston swap, but it did run before that too)
> 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.
Yea I suppose that's true.
> 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.
Sloppy tolerances don't necessarily translate to poor longevity in my
mind. If an engine was designed for loose tolerances (dictated by mass
production limitations of yesteryear), then I'm sure it would last a
long time. Add low power output into the mix, and you get 300k engines
that just refuse to die. Old V8's, the VW beetle boxer, some 4-banger
diesel engines.. Not very sophisticated, not very powerful for the
displacement, but they take you from A to B for decades.
When you increase the power output and load, the wear and tear increases.
> 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.
I'm mostly familiar with old VW's. The factory apparently started using
noticeably more recycled steel in th elate 60's and early 70's. Those
cars are almost all total rustbuckets, structural rust damage
everywhere. 50's and 60's models, even non-hobbyist cars, are in much
better shape. 70's and 80's were bad... for european and japanese cars
at least. 90's wasn't that much better, but zinc plated body parts
started to make way into mass produced cars (Volvo, Audi, the higher end
vehicles first)
> 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.
Mileage stayed pretty much the same, give or take a little, and vehicle
performance stayed virtually unchanged. Weight increased, and the
improved fuel economy & horsepower covered the gap. I don't know where
the weight comes from, more steel and interior materials? Thicker glass?
All the 'new technology' that you now have to lug around with you?
There are a few exceptions in the family vehicle sector, some small
diesels get awesome mileage, a lot better than their comparable
predecessors. But we are still looking at 20-30 something MPG new
passenger cars, while 40mpg vehicles were available 40 years ago. It
takes a hybrid to get over 40 these days. Back to increased weight and
performance again :) One would think that with all the modern
technology, we would know how to make parts out of lighter materials
without sacrificing strenght. Some attempts have been made (aluminum
trailing arms on VW passats etc. needed replacing after 20k and were
soon discontinued) but still the weights have increased by 50% easily
over the past 1-2 decades. (european and asian cars)
> 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.
I guess I was born a generation or two too late :D
I do like the looks of the latest Mustang, more as time p*****. The
challenger looks very very promising. The camaro sort of lacks
something, can't say what it is.
> 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.
Style makes a big difference yes. I don't like cars that disappear into
the gray mass the second you blink your eye. There are mechanically
interesting cars out there that do just that. Then there are nice
looking cars that leave room for improvement in the performance or
handling area, and that's a big disappointment too.
I have to admit that it's my personality to always try to improve on
something and make it more to my liking. Nothing is good enough right
off the showroom floor. Or used car lot, for that matter. I would modify
old classics just the same.
I guess you just can't please me. LOL
|
