WHY DO people like old cars, anyway?

[rca2000]

I am going to raise a few eyebrows withthis, but I am curious: WHY do old "standard"(and by that, I mean, non-muscle type, non-exciting ) cars, attract people for, anyway? NOW-- Let me be CLEAR on what I am talking about-- specifically, late '60's to early '80's non fuel-injected cars,in particular, 70's cars, that were a JOKE, in that they had NO power(typical accelleration figures of 14 seconds or MORE, from 0 to 60, WITH a v-8 of 350 or bigger, )TERRIBLE gas mileage, (12 MPG was considered GOOD), took FOREVER to stop, Cornered like a big rig,they WORE OUT, at UNDER 100k,the bodies rusted away, and so on . This applied to cars like a 1973 Caprice, montego, grand-am, dodge coronet, etc. I mean, a 1975 mercury Monarch, with a 302, ONLY put out 130HP!!, Form a 302!!


As some know, I am thinking of buying an older car, right now. BUT-- the "old" car, I am considering, is an '89, with port injection, and good suspension. It does 0-60 in UNDER 10 seconds, handles corners like some sports cars,and stops from 60 in about 150ft. Whats more, the fuel mileage is about 23mpg average--, and with care, it would go to over 200-250k miles, before it is ready for the junkyard.

SO, after seing some reports on those old '70's cars, and the pi$$-poor ratings, I must say ,that I would NEVER want to get one, for ANY reason. I can understand the fascination with the cars from the '50's, and to the nmid-60's, but the '70's cars , in my opinion, were pure JUNK. I owned one, a 77 buick regal, and it was SLOW, it drank the gas,(350 v-8) it was VERY unreliable, I couldn't usually go more than a month or so, before it needed serious repairs, and it handled poorly. My Olds I had recently, (till 2003) would had left it about halfway behind it, in a race, with a SMALLER engine, and nearly DOUBLE the gas mileage!! And, up till about 200k, I had good luck with the Olds, needing only general repairs, every 6 months or so, and the biggest thing to fail, up till then, was the ball-joints and wheel bearings, at about 160k. The same applied to the 78 Dodge Magnum XE, my mother owned, I driove it a couople of times, and it was NOT that fast, for a 360v-8.

Unlike old audio equipment, which seems to go forever, with a little maintenance, 70's cars seem to be junk, at under 100k, and as far as I am concerned, 70's cars, wiht a few exceptions are pure JUNK!!!!!

[Andyman]

Maybe it's because new cars have no soul these days???

Would you rather be in a Neon or a Gremlin??

Maybe that's a bad example, but you get my drift.........

[VinylHanger]

Because I prefer a car with coolness. Don't take me wrong. But that puny piece of tin car you are considering, I wouldn't take it if it was given to me. Those kind of cars give me gas, they are bad for the digestion. They ride like crap, they sound like crap, they are crap. OK, take this how I said it. You don't like cars I like and your cars are crap. But hey, whatever gets you to work I suppose.
The best thing about old cars is the ride my friend. Ever been in a 78 Grand Marquis wagon at 100? It just floats, the engine is doing about 1400 rpm, and not even breathing hard. My '69 Skylark is the same way, pinky finger power steering, rides like a couch, and can light'em up with the flick of a toe.
I really hate posts that act all nice and then go and diss things that you know people on AK enjoy. Maybe I just don't have patience tonight, or maybe I've had a bad week, or maybe I'm channeling both Russ and TA tonight. However, I still won't be driving a tinbox car to work tomorrow, so all's good.

dis-claimer, for others here who like itty-bitty tin type cars, I don't mean your particular car sucks. ;)

[2DualsNotEnough]

I dunno,I always wanted a Cordoba,espescially in that two-toned gold and black paint job,with the "Fine Corinthian Leather"(Thanks,Ricardo!).Maybe Im just channeling my high school days,when I lusted after one.
Jimmy

[OvenMaster]

Maybe because cars back then didn't require a degree in both Mechanical and Electrical Engineering to fix, and that you could do it yourself 99% of the time? Maybe because back then, a car looked like a car and not carved out of a bar of soap and had four wheels stuck on it? Maybe because they actually had some steel in 'em instead of plastic? Maybe because we could actually fit in even some of the smaller ones? Maybe because back then that was all we had?

I will gladly make an exception for the time period of 1973 to 1976; the cars of those years had the unhappy combination of mandatory seat belt interlocks (1974) and incredibly complex pollution reduction gear just hung all over engines as to make them nearly undriveable, because unleaded gas and catalytic converters didn't come onto the market until 1977, and the bodies in '73 to '76 had been the huge, non-downsized ones designed in the mid-'60's. The cars of this unfortunate four-year period had railroad ties for bumpers and were admittedly ugly as sin, too. I wouldn't even take a free Porsche from that era! But the other years--- (for sake of discussion) 1967 to 1972, and 1977 to 1980--- depending on the make, model, and condition, I'd consider buying, and I dare predict that the '77 to '80 years will become the next bunch of cars that hot-rodders turn to. All the sources for older iron are just about tapped out.

All this having been said, my present car is a '98 Taurus wagon. Actually, I think it's great. Decent size, great mileage, spacious, good ride and handling, and in the two or three years I've had it, all it's needed is a starter. But I always have a nagging worry in the back of my mind that when it DOES need a repair, I'll be forced to take it to a mechanic instead of doing it myself and 1. learning something, 2. getting self-satisfaction for a job well done, and 3. saving a boatload of cash. Just as one instance, I was shocked to learn that to remove the heater core, the entire dashboard has to come out, an all-day, six pages of instruction job that would have taken ten minutes in my Dad's old Chevy.

Tom

[markthefixer]

I like older cars, so this ISN'T a dis, but when I did the heater core in my 1970 1/2 Camaro, I had to pull off the left FENDER to get it out.....

My current driver is a 1979 Cordoba.... with 318 2bbl with 35 k miles.....
I like the 318 better than the 400 / 440 in 2 BBl or thermoquad I have owned many of each... 318/340/360/383/400 and 440 at various times... and I like the way the 318 - 360 's come off the line... I never ever got a big block (383 - 440) to do that... and I'm somewhat skilled in mopars....
but once those big blocks got going, I was GONE....

My theory is that the state of the art tin cars nowadays stop better because of their lower weight.... but I don't want to ride in one and have to be pried out with a hurst tool in an accident.

I put my prized 73 Charger into the end of a Jersey Barrier at a measured 55 mph back in 1984... shortened the car 4 feet (real and measured) on the left side of the engine.... and walked away (although I did have to KICK the door open)..... the next day I NEEDED some Ibuprofin, being kinda sore..... ( the first cops on the scene asked me where the ambulance crew had taken the driver.... I had a VERY hard time convincing them I WAS THE DRIVER). Now that's a tough car.(The dent in the roof in the center picture is where the shoulder belt was mounted.)


In a newer car... all bets are off.... but sooner or later I will run out of affordable old estate sale mopars..... then I will get a post 96 car where I can have the computer tell me what is going on/wrong...

[grumpy]

It ain't about speed,power or handling. Its all about class. Some cars have it and some don't

[Sandy G]

Yeah, my '73 Caddy Fleetwood is an absolute PIG to drive around town, but get it out on the interstate, set the cruise control on 70-or whatever, sit back, & let the big dog eat up the miles.. Drape your hand over the top of the wheel, tune in a good FM station, & let's go, baby. Same thing w/the '69 Lincoln, but it has the advantage of no pollution plumbing to throttle everything back, so it will fly. And the "suicide doors"-always a conversation starter. But I'll agree-mid '70s cars were generally abyssimal. The big 3 got out of touch, let the quality go south, & that's when the Japanese made such headway. I had a '76 Olds Cutlass w/a 350 & it was a slow pig until I had it "worked on", & all the revolting-and ineffectual- anti-smog crap went away. Then it ran like a scalded hound !!-Sandy G.

[WhiteSE]

Ouch Mark...I hope you had a HANS device!

[jerrymrc]

I will agree it was a sad time. I was just getting started as a line wrench in 76 and not fun. There were a few bright spots back then. 1975 TA.

[Sandy G]

'75 Tits 'n' Ass !! Hell, yeah !! NOW you're talkin'..My college roomate talked his parents into a '79 Formula Firebird for graduation..it was "electric" blue had T-tops, white vinyl seats...and no A/C. For a kid who lived in Virginia Beach..It stays SWELTERING there half the time. The worst thing tho was the motor..a 260 V-8...at least it had a 5-speed, but the thoughts of having to row that tranny all the time to try to eke SOME power outta that mouse motor...Ugh !! At least it was MARGINALLY better than his other car-a '74 Pinto w/an automatic. That car woulda been better off powered by rubber bands...-Sandy G.

[markthefixer]

HANS device???? In 1984??????? they hadn't even heard of it...
Just Seatbelt with windowshade and shoulder belts WITHOUT any tensioner, just a cinch type slider, which I always wore TIGHT... don't know why, just felt good and I could do all the driving motions ok.
College physics taught me about the pea rattling in the can effect, and I had done mil spec g-force equipment shock/drop tests just a few years earlier.
So I deaccellerated with the passenger compartment, riding the squash energy absorption effect, the passenger compartment BULGED both up and down.... the body is almost touching the ground in the pictures, and the tire is on an 8 inch tall ramp.
There is about a 6 inch dent in the center picture on the roof where the shoulder belt was anchored. ( I had a sore shoulder for a few days...was darn lucky my neck was only sore for about two days with restricted side to side turning).

Six inches to the right, I would have dined on carburator, six inches to the left the barrier woiuld have punched into the passenger compartment.

Yes, God didn't want me yet......

[Donny]

My Mom had a 77 olds that had a big block 403 that I loved! A very comfy car with power to spare. I had a 79 GMC full size truck 350 auto,it was fun really easy steering,easy power breaks. I also think the chevy luv,vega,camero,trans am, are cool cars. I think horse power ratings are almost useless,they can be inflated or deflated for what ever reason (sales or insurence) I would compair it to watts on stereo gear.

[dgwojo]

I hate to admit it but I love my Olds 69 Vista Cruiser, as it was said before, these cars take on the $hitty roads much better than the light weights of today. The designers made these cars have class and style, just look at the "LINES" from the side views, these cars had "identity", today it's hard to tell a "rice burner" from a domestic, they all look the same, can't these designers be a little more artistic? Another thing about the old cars is the nostalgia, it might be your first car that you crave (mine was a 1969 Chevelle SS 396), or, maybe you associate the music and memories of that era? Another ride on my list of wants is a 72 - 72 Caddy Fleetwood Eldorado rag top, man would that be a gas guzzling cruiser with 500 cubes under the hood and front wheel drive, who cares about the gas price when you use 1 tank a year?? There is one car that makes me let go of the old, well, sort of, the new Mustang, Ford did it up right, then again an old 70's Mustang with a 6 cylinder would be a good investment, nothing special in its time but fun to be in!! :yes:
My Truckster (http://home.earthlink.net/~dwojo/id2.html)

[merrylander]

Geez, I thought this was going to be about older cars. Now some of the ones I lusted after were;

A 1936 McLaughlin Buick coupe with suicide doors and a monster straight eight with pistons the size of baby's thunder mugs, a car with total class.

A a 1939 Lincoln Continental, the one designed by Edsel Ford, only the wussy 12 cylinder had beed replaced with a 1948 Mercury V8.

A 1940 LaSalle (small Cadillac) four door - again just total style, at home anywhere.

A 1955 English Rover with the swooping fenders (wings for my British cousins) that was known as the Hartley Street Rolls because so many doctors drove them. It had this strange F head engine with overhead intake valves and side valve exhaust. Definitely a classy car, unlike so many of today's designs from the jellybean design school.

Since all of these are unavailable we drive his and hers Impalas because we like the evil grin it has coming at you and will blow the doors off most anything around. :D

Rob

[Reel 2 Reel]

It was style....show me 3 cars today ..affordable to the average Joe..with any style...would be hard to do...they all looke the same...same bubble type..buick, chevy..pontiac...all made on the same line...same interiors...same plastic parts...plastic...yuck..

Fords are the same way...look at the focus...shure its econonmiacl..how ever the f*% you spell it! but its butt-fugly....and comfort??...well ...I wouldnt want to take it cross country......get into a rolling parking lot on a friday afternoon bout 5pm..in one of the bigger cities.....all around you are Big-Rigs...now thats scarey!!...been there -done that...dont want to go back...

Look at the cars from ...well...way back when...chrome moulding...heavy fenders...bench seats...and enough room in the back seat to ...well... you know what to do in the back seat of a big ole boat!!....I hope!!!lol..

Its like the difference between an Mac amp..from 67'...and a sony from ...98'....which has the class...the style......new stuff was made to throw away.....


When my Ferd Tempo takes a dump on me ...I'm replacing it with something from the 60s...a mustang...or a Torino...maverick...or my favorite ...a 60 chevy Impala!!

If I'm gonna shell out 9-10 grand for a car....I can get a reel good classic for that price...and will turn heads when I go by.....at least when it takes a dump on me...I can fix it..with a coat hanger and a roll of duct tape...plus parts are cheap and still avilable....a new carb for my merc, a big Autolite 4bbl, was only $165.....valve cover gasgets...$6..for both!..a new cover gasget for my Tempo was $25!!!!..I said FU#@k that...tube of RTV!...$3..

When I see someone in a new car, on the side of the road with the hood open...I say to myself...So!!...whatcha gonna do under there.....no gas?.....no spark?...no run!...how are ya gonna fix that on the side of the road..... The old stuff ...no gas...hmm..fuel pump...or none in the tank... No spark.......points...got another set in the glove box...takes two minuits to change...book of matches sets the gap...off ya go...on the road again!.....and you can use a pair of pantyhose for a belt in a pinch!!...seen it done!!...

[Toasted Almond]

Hey Reel, did you have the "manty" hose on or were they in the toolbox?

I like the class of the older cars, and the no monthly payment has a certain charm to it.

[sixt8mopar]

The cars in the 70's were not all that bad, certainly not some of the most beautiful cars made but better than some of the crap these days.My 76 T-bird is probably the smoothest ride I have ever been in, and though it is a big smogged out 460 motor it sure does have the power to get all 5000lbs.of it moving fairly quick.Sure it's no muscle car but it sure is class.

Last week I pulled up beside one of those silly looking Smart cars.Looked to be about as long as my front fender, what a joke!One of the ugliest, unsafe looking cars, and people are buying those for what 25 grand.......

[Andyman]

Here's a heads up for anyone who's looking for fun next weekend, especially Saturday

2006 Woodward DreamCruise (http://www.woodwarddreamcruise.com/)

There will only be about a million people there Jack can ask this question of. :thmbsp:

I went last year and hung out with the Grumpy's and had a great time. I know dgwojo was there too and there's threads posted with tons of pics.

If you're reading this thread and can drive in, you really need to consider it. I don't think there's a bigger event anywhere for classic cars :yes:

[Andyman]

Here's a scary thought:
Compare a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle to something like a 2004 Ford Taurus. FWIW, the Beetle's wheelbase is only 14" less than the Ford (94.5" vs 108.5")
That Beetle was a "compact" car back then. Rap each fender too, but be careful; you may bust a knuckle on the VW.

[Reel 2 Reel]

Hey Reel, did you have the "manty" hose on or were they in the toolbox?

Shhhhhhh!!...dont be tellin everybody!.....maaan! :naughty:

[clint e.]

I think one of the reasons are because old car design's have more personality.

clint.

[Sandy G]

The Caddy my grandad had that I liked the best was a tan '60 Sedan DeVille. What a car- Spaceship wraparound windshield, long as from here to tomorrow & back, acres & acres of chrome, & the Fins. Ahh, those wonderful, infamous Cataract fins. These were the slightly smaller 1960 version, but they were still huge, & stories abounded back in the day of people being impaled in them. Like to see the "Mythbusters" take on THAT one... I was just off mama's teat when Papaw Fritz got it, but I knew even at that early age it was Something Special. He traded it for an avocado-that fugly not-quite-gold, not-quite-green color so prevalent back then-'68 Sedan Deville-no chrome, no fins, no sex. Gawdam thing looked like a big Shivverlay, for Pete's sake, instead of The Standard Of The world. I'd give my eyeteeth to have that tan '60 now....-Sandy G.

[Fast_Eddie]

Well, I'll jump in here. I drive a 1972 Mercury Capri every day. I have two of them. One is a 2000cc 4 cylinder, and the other a 2600cc V6. But I should point out, even the 2000 has considerably better performance than you mentioned in your question, and with the mods I've made, they handle like race cars.

I can tell you why I drive them, but I'm probably not typical. I have a very short commute to work, probably 2.5 miles. I figure between the two of them I'll be able to get there. So I don't need to have 20 or 30 thousand bucks tied up in a "real" car.

Almost every day, at least one person says something or gives me a "thumbs up" while I'm in my car. Twice I've had guys follow me into a parking lot just so they could ask me about it. Lets face it, you don't see a '72 Capri every day.

Everyone owned one, or their brother owned one, or their cool Uncle owned one. It's just that kind of car.

But to really answer your question: it's a hobby. Just like listening to stereo gear from the 70s. Lots of folks would ask why we do that. Why not buy something new? You're always working on that old stuff. New foam for the speakers, cleaning dirty pots- and why does that one fuse keep blowing? It's a hobby, and if you enjoy it, you enjoy it! Same with the cars.

Take care,

Ed

[SPL db]

If you have to ask... you wouldn't understand! :D

Older cars have soul... mainly because you could tell one car from another!

Today you can't hardly tell one make from the other let alone the car.

For me, I always liked having the car that only a few people had/have, I really
don't like "cookie-cutter" cars - seen one, ya seen them all!

The older cars can be rebuilt with today's technology or you can leave them
the way they are, it's really all up to the owner!

I've seen newer cars broke down, rusted out, guttless, more than I've seen older
cars in my area... why? Because people take care of their older cars where the
newer cars are just basic transportation.

Scott

[sixt8mopar]

My daily 85 Crown Vic surpisingly gets the looks, and "wow that's in great shape" comments all the time.A decent looking 20 something year old car up here in the "salt belt" is quite rare.Just another hobby for me, I enjoy fixing and repairing my own vehicles and I will be driving the older cars as long as I can.

[dgwojo]

Here's a heads up for anyone who's looking for fun next weekend, especially Saturday

2006 Woodward DreamCruise (http://www.woodwarddreamcruise.com/)

There will only be about a million people there Jack can ask this question of. :thmbsp:

I went last year and hung out with the Grumpy's and had a great time. I know dgwojo was there too and there's threads posted with tons of pics.

If you're reading this thread and can drive in, you really need to consider it. I don't think there's a bigger event anywhere for classic cars :yes:
Yes, I fired up the Vista Cruiser yesterday and it's almost ready to go, I hob nobbed with Eaton, WOMC, and WXYZ last year since Federal-Mogul didn't take over Starbuck's last year and won't again this year, Eaton went public this year, they'll be at 13 Mile and Woodward in the community park, open to all!! C U There, Dave. :yes:

[Kamakiri]

Old cars are fun to drive, but restoring a car and driving a restored car.....sucks.

That is, unless you enjoy ducking and covering in a rainstorm and Q-tip cleaning the vents. Life's too damn short for that IMO.

[rca2000]

I guess I had my taste for cars of the 70's ruined, after owining one(my FIRST car, the ,77 regal), and the magnum my mnother owned,and seeing a lot of other such cars fall apart, or rust away, at 100k, or even less. NOW-- to be FAIR-- I DID own a 1978 Dodge van, a "bare bones " model,in 1987, and it had the 318, and it WAS pretty reliable, if I remember right, till a drugged-out idiot blew the engine, in a fit of rage, after harassing his girlfriend(He WAS a friend, at the time, and needed the van, to GO TO WORK, so I lent it to him. He got nito an accident, hit-and-run, and THEN,later that night, ruined my van... long story, I do not care to rehash).Nonetheless, I have the WORST luck, with carberateours, in the Buick, a 1980 T-bird, and a 1981 Chevy van. all 3 got mssed up, began using gas ,like 6 mpg, an delivering NO power at all, and NO ONE could get them right. OTOH, I have had the BEST luck, with port FI, and having Buick, Olds, Chrysler, Pontiac , cars and(mini) vans, from the mid-80's, to 2001s, I am sold on FI, and distributorless ignition. (I was left by the road, by the Pontiac 6000, due to the rotor, once, and later, due to the coil, breakng down when it got hot, and the Chrysler New youker turbo had a cracked distributor, that would die, when a heavy rain/snow came, but it WAS easy to fix).

I, too am one, who cannot afford a new car, and have always had to settle with the "hand me downs", that some well-to-do person traded off or sold, at 40k-100k, or so. Nonetheless, all of my cars, with FI and non-distributor ,computer-controlled engines, have NOT left me, somewhere stranded.

Now, I want to clarify something::when I was talking about the poor performance, of those '70' cars, I meant STOCK, with all of the prmitive emissions devices all over them, burying the engine so bad, you could barely even see it, for all of the hoses, and wires. I am SURE, that if someone redid them and removed all of that junk, they could run pretty well, but I never had that knowledge to do so. I have seen some mid-70's cars, that had ben modded, and they ran GOOD, with lots of power, and, according to the owners, decent economy.

SO, after my own bad experiences with them(70's cars) I just prefer modern (mid-80's and later) cars, with FI, DIS, and other modern conveniences, that those old cars never imagined. I do ADMIT, a lot of them look similar, but I am after performance, economy, reliability, and handling, as I like driving, and want to make the experience as fun as possible, both from a driving standpoint, and a drivers comfort standpoint.

[rca2000]

I guess I had my taste for cars of the 70's ruined, after owining one(my FIRST car, the ,77 regal), and the magnum my mnother owned,and seeing a lot of other such cars fall apart, or rust away, at 100k, or even less. NOW-- to be FAIR-- I DID own a 1978 Dodge van, a "bare bones " model,in 1987, and it had the 318, and it WAS pretty reliable, if I remember right, till a drugged-out idiot blew the engine, in a fit of rage, after harassing his girlfriend(He WAS a friend, at the time, and needed the van, to GO TO WORK, so I lent it to him. He got nito an accident, hit-and-run, and THEN,later that night, ruined my van... long story, I do not care to rehash).Nonetheless, I have the WORST luck, with carberateours, in the Buick, a 1980 T-bird, and a 1981 Chevy van. all 3 got mssed up, began using gas ,like 6 mpg, an delivering NO power at all, and NO ONE could get them right. OTOH, I have had the BEST luck, with port FI, and having Buick, Olds, Chrysler, Pontiac , cars and(mini) vans, from the mid-80's, to 2001s, I am sold on FI, and distributorless ignition. (I was left by the road, by the Pontiac 6000, due to the rotor, once, and later, due to the coil, breakng down when it got hot, and the Chrysler New youker turbo had a cracked distributor, that would die, when a heavy rain/snow came, but it WAS easy to fix).

I, too am one, who cannot afford a new car, and have always had to settle with the "hand me downs", that some well-to-do person traded off or sold, at 40k-100k, or so. Nonetheless, all of my cars, with FI and non-distributor ,computer-controlled engines, have NOT left me, somewhere stranded.

Now, I want to clarify something::when I was talking about the poor performance, of those '70' cars, I meant STOCK, with all of the prmitive emissions devices all over them, burying the engine so bad, you could barely even see it, for all of the hoses, and wires. I am SURE, that if someone redid them and removed all of that junk, they could run pretty well, but I never had that knowledge to do so. I have seen some mid-70's cars, that had ben modded, and they ran GOOD, with lots of power, and, according to the owners, decent economy.

SO, after my own bad experiences with them(70's cars) I just prefer modern (mid-80's and later) cars, with FI, DIS, and other modern conveniences, that those old cars never imagined. I do ADMIT, a lot of them look similar, but I am after performance, economy, reliability, and handling, as I like driving, and want to make the experience as fun as possible, both from a driving standpoint, and a drivers comfort standpoint.

[rca2000]

I guess I had my taste for cars of the 70's ruined, after owining one(my FIRST car, the ,77 regal), and the magnum my mnother owned,and seeing a lot of other such cars fall apart, or rust away, at 100k, or even less. NOW-- to be FAIR-- I DID own a 1978 Dodge van, a "bare bones " model,in 1987, and it had the 318, and it WAS pretty reliable, if I remember right, till a drugged-out idiot blew the engine, in a fit of rage, after harassing his girlfriend(He WAS a friend, at the time, and needed the van, to GO TO WORK, so I lent it to him. He got into an accident, hit-and-run, and THEN,later that night, ruined my van... long story, I do not care to rehash).Nonetheless, I have the WORST luck, with carberateours, in the Buick, a 1980 T-bird, and a 1981 Chevy van. all 3 got mssed up, began using gas ,like 6 mpg, an delivering NO power at all, and NO ONE could get them right. OTOH, I have had the BEST luck, with port FI, and having Buick, Olds, Chrysler, Pontiac , cars and(mini) vans, from the mid-80's, to 2001s, I am sold on FI, and distributorless ignition. (I was left by the road, by the Pontiac 6000, due to the rotor, once, and later, due to the coil, breakng down when it got hot, and the Chrysler New youker turbo had a cracked distributor, that would die, when a heavy rain/snow came, but it WAS easy to fix).

I, too am one, who cannot afford a new car, and have always had to settle with the "hand me downs", that some well-to-do person traded off or sold, at 40k-100k, or so. Nonetheless, all of my cars, with FI and non-distributor ,computer-controlled engines, have NOT left me, somewhere stranded.

Now, I want to clarify something::when I was talking about the poor performance, of those '70' cars, I meant STOCK, with all of the prmitive emissions devices all over them, burying the engine so bad, you could barely even see it, for all of the hoses, and wires. I am SURE, that if someone redid them and removed all of that junk, they could run pretty well, but I never had that knowledge to do so. I have seen some mid-70's cars, that had ben modded, and they ran GOOD, with lots of power, and, according to the owners, decent economy.

SO, after my own bad experiences with them(70's cars) I just prefer modern (mid-80's and later) cars, with FI, DIS, and other modern conveniences, that those old cars never imagined. I do ADMIT, a lot of them look similar, but I am after performance, economy, reliability, and handling, as I like driving, and want to make the experience as fun as possible, both from a driving standpoint, and a drivers comfort standpoint.

[tentoze]

Dayum, son, that's a bunch of opinion.........

[SPL db]

Old cars are fun to drive, but restoring a car and driving a restored car.....sucks.

That is, unless you enjoy ducking and covering in a rainstorm and Q-tip cleaning the vents. Life's too damn short for that IMO.

That would also depend on how carried away you get with your restoration as well...

I've restored all my "toys" as drivers, not trailer queens!

Having a trailer queen is not my style... I want to DRIVE the thing! :D

Scott

[Fast_Eddie]

I wanted a more reliable daily driver, so I bought a EFI Turbo Merkur XR4ti. Great car. Loved it to death. When I could make it go.

Now, when it went, it went like hell. But I did so much work on that thing, and didn't understand how it worked.

Rebuilding a carb on my Capri takes a couple of hours of work total. Fixing the EFI on the Merkur took 3 years, and I never did get it completely right. That's why the Capri is cheap transportation for me. I can fix anything on that car myself. I've never had to take it to a mechanic. That's not to say I'm a great wrench, the car is just simple.

I did, however, update the points ignition to a later Ford electronic ignition. That helped performance, gas mileage and reliability. Electronic Ignition is where a lot of the improvement in modern cars comes from. The EFI is nice when it works, but if you ever have to fix it, you need to take it somewhere.

Now, I drove an '84 Toyota Celica with EFI for years. It was stollen with 250,000 miles on it. Never had to touch it. Never needed anything. The AC even worked. Great car. When EFI works like that, it's a beautiful thing.

Take care,

Ed

[Fast_Eddie]

Old cars are fun to drive, but restoring a car and driving a restored car.....sucks.

That is, unless you enjoy ducking and covering in a rainstorm and Q-tip cleaning the vents. Life's too damn short for that IMO.

That all depends. I'm restoring the red Capri, but I won't duck when it rains. I'm restoring it as a driver. Not trying to make a show car out of it. It all depends on what kind of car it is and what level of restoration you're doing.

If you're doing a 289 k code Mustang fastback, you probably aren't going to drive it everyday anyhow. At least I wouldn't. I'd love to have the time and money to do a car like that, but it would sit in the garage and only come out fo fun days.

That's why I like my cars. They're not so valuable that you can't drive them. My blue Capri is really nice, but I still only have maybe $4500 in it total. I'd cry if it was wrecked, but I wouldn't be out a lot of money.

Ed

[Toasted Almond]

I can't believe nobody has stated the real obvious.

The first time my wife, the former Theresa Talamonti, rode with me in The Shark, she looked over her shoulder at the back seat and said, "What do you think the chances are that it's been broken in properly?" Considering who I had purchased it from, I knew that back seat was virgin. But not for long.

Sometimes that girl takes my breath away.

[philo426]

I had an'84 Chevy Caprice 2-door with a 305 and a 4-bbl carb.One of the most reliable cars I ever owned had plenty of power and got 15-17mpg.Unfortunately it had the bad GM paint that just peeled right off leaving the car vulnerable to rust.My neighbor gave it to me but it was badly rusted,but I drove it for 2 years with minimal problems .I would like to find a similar car in better condition.I liked the room and the full chrome bumpers too!

[Toasted Almond]

I got 16 MPG on one trip and one trip only. When I had my whole family in the car, and a car carrier thing on top. It was not a modern aerodynamic one either. That was in The Gray Shark, also the 305, 4-bbl.

Both my big Chevy's get 26mpg on the highway if all they are hauling is me. I gauged both of them on separate 350 mile round trips to Andrews AFB. Each one has a 26 gallon tank making for a 600 mile range unrefueled.

[rca2000]

I was watching " The grapes of Wrath", last night, and it reminded me of something: It seems that, on the real old cars, one had to add coolant, ever so often, 'cause it just "boiled away". WHY?? did not those old cars from that era, have "closed" cooling systems, lke modern cars do? AFAIK, even the cars from the '50's and newer, did not need the radiator rrefilled every few hundered miles, unless they were leaking. I DO know, that if they got too hot, the spring on the radiator cap would open, and let a little coolant run out, and before the overflow bottles(I KNOW they had those, in the '70's, and maybe earlier), a little coolant would run out, on the road. BUT-- that old truck, (and others, I have seen in other movies depicting cars of that time), looked like it was NORMAL to add water, every few hundered miles, or so. Is that correct, or was that just Hollywood?

[Chad Hauris]

I have a 1978 Grand Marquis, 400 engine, over 241,000 miles on it. I just love driving that old car, it just has a comfortable ride and a sense of solidness and massiveness that is missing from modern cars.
It is very easy to work on...have replaced the alternator, fuel pump, valve cover gaskets, hoses and belts very easily. Yes, you often do have to replace some items that have age-related deterioration, but once you do these old cars can be very reliable.
I am just amazed by the way these fairly simple old machines can drive down the road and get you to your destination more comfortably than modern cars.
Have an allis-chalmers tractor with 201 CID engine, you don't even need a battery to make it run (has magneto ignition). Just the fact that a nearly 60 year old machine is still running and doing what it was designed to do amazes me.

[Chad Hauris]

I was watching " The grapes of Wrath", last night, and it reminded me of something: It seems that, on the real old cars, one had to add coolant, ever so often, 'cause it just "boiled away". WHY?? did not those old cars from that era, have "closed" cooling systems, lke modern cars do?

My allis chalmers tractor (1940's) is like that...once you stop the engine the water can heat up to the boiling point dut to the fact the fan and water pump aren't running anymore but there is residual heat in the engine, and water can boil over out of the overflow tube. I check the water and add as needed before starting up.

[harmkard330guy]

I hate it when people diss old cars. My dad owns a 1965 chevy chevelle and that thing rides so nice it feels like you are rideing on a cloud. And we also own a 1974 corvette and a 1979 malibue classic station wagon and a 1966 mustange fastback. And i will tell you what they kick the sh@% out of any of our newer cars and the old cars have better build quality. None of this cheap plastic garbage just good old solid metal. And i think the reason some older cars arent that fast is because the engines are tired and they are so heavy. Sure you can buy your stooped little ricer4 cylender crap car but i deffinatly wouldnt. And the only way you would be able to beat a old car with a new car is if you spend a good 5000 dollars on the engine nos systems. But if you did the same stuff to an old chevy the old chevy would still win because it has real horsepower. I will bet you my 1979 malibue station wagon will kill your little cheapo car in a race. Its got a 396 out of a 1968 chevelle and that is bored out to 402 horse power. I dont care what you think but new cars are just JUNK! But i think you should buy a 1965 chevelle ss and bore it out with a racing engine. All performance parts that is if you really want to race. But if that 396 could fit in any new cars. Its got so much power that it would probably twist the frame. But i will always buy chevy and never buy ford.

[rca2000]

As I said those cars were slow, and junk, when they were STOCK, with all of that power-robbing (and fuel-mileage robbibg) emissions junk on them!! Sure, IF you beef one up, it will run well, and fast. But STOCK, it would be hard to argue, that cars from 1972-1981, were not that good(with some exceptions, like sports cars, etc). Pre 1972 cars, well, with good tires, they are hard to beat, in the power and racing department.

But, modern(mid-80's and on) FWD , PFI-injected cars do not NEED all of that emissions junk, and they tend to not need a lot of mods, to drive with authority, and they give good gas mileage.

BUT-- I WILL admit, that in a bad accident, they can fold up, into pretty much a big accordian.

We all have our own tastes,and I do NOT mean to diss those who like old cars. I like old hi-fi, like the rest of us, BUT I like modern cars., with all of the modern, hi-tech items in them that entails.

[Sandy G]

I think in "The Grapes of Wrath" the cars were supposed to be old barely running jalopies, & some of that was Hollywood. But cars HAVE gotten better since the '30s-better oils, fuels, metallurgy, ignition systems, and just the general advance of technology. The early Ford V-8, for example, was prone to vapor-lock, & had high oil consumption at first anyway. Cars didn't have oil filters as std equipment til the late '50s-you could have 'em installed, though. The Chevy 6 til 1954 had a primitive "splash-oiling" lubrication system that worked OK at the lower speeds people drove back then, but would soon self-destruct if you pushed the car much past 70 for very long. A typical car of 1940 was pretty well used up at 100,000 miles-now we expect to get 175-200 out of 'em. -Sandy G.

[RussinOhio]

I think fondness for old cars has more to do with memories of days past than vehichle quality/reliability.

When my brother & I were teenagers my dad gave us a '73 El Camino to run around in. LOVED that old camino and wish I (or we) still had it!


Early El Caminos had MAJOR cool factor! Especially with mag-wheels on 'em.

Memories indeed! The car my dad taught me how to drive in was a Chevy Corvair.
I think those are collectors items now.

Russ

[DanTana]

Old cars are not effected by EMP.

[Toasted Almond]

Priceless.

[bgadow]

Everyone talks about old cars being safer, thanks to bulk, but there is something to be said for the designs of newer models which take the impact so you don't have to. I once saw a video where they ran an early 30s Chevy through the same crash test-probably 35mph-that new cars run. That poor old Chevy just disentegrated. Gradually they learned. The first car I rode in was a first generation Torino. Dad sold it-he was running a wrecker then & every Torino he saw in a crash didn't fair well at all. But to look at stuff like that old Chevy or that Torino you would say it was indestructible.

The 70s were the only decade when the US auto industry really went backward. Just too many things against them at once-emissions, fuel economy, safety, insurance companies-all tightening the noose. Several years ago I attended a class where the instructor took a poll-how many in this room own an American car made from 1973-1979? Nobody did. The point was that they were all junk. Well, I won't go that far. If you took the poll today the results would be different because, as others have pointed out, 60s stuff is going out of sight. If you can't afford the 69 Camaro of your dreams, get that 79, its still cheap. I think most folks who buy them these days rip out all the emmisions junk in short order & hot rod them just like the older stuff. But from the factory they were not so hot.

Occasionally a real clean 70s model will show up & I could see myself owning it. The other day a fellow stopped by in a 78 Grand Marquis, very similiar to the one that replaced that old Torino. Car was clean as a whistle. Then there was the 74 Newport at the estate auction last Saturday, little old ladies car, just been backed out of the garage. I can daydream about them but I wouldn't want to live with them. My 67 Impala is enough of a project-at least its simple enough to work on. The only times it left me were electrical in nature & if you're creative you can still make it back.

[rca2000]

Old cars are not effected by EMP.


Yeah.. You got a point there.. An 89-92 Trofeo, with the VIC, would most likely put up a little skull and crossbones up on the screen, and the words "your #ucked",(Just kiddin'),If an EMP were to burst anywhere near it, and then, become as dead as a stone, until a complete reboot of the dozen or so computers onboard.(the same applies to ANY 1982 or newer car, with computer control).

Whereas, a 1971 or so, point-type ignition car, with a carb, could keep on chuging by, with nary an effect, except for the radio!!

[rca2000]

I rode in one, in the fall of '84. It was, and to this day still IS, the fastest, meanest car, Ive ridden in. I originally did not think it wiould be that fast, so the owner let me know, by giving it all there was, from about 25 or so, getting on a ramp to a highway. Man, I remember, it was SO powerful!! It slammed me back so hard in the seat, it hurt a little, BUT it was FUN!!! I doubt a modern car, save a porsche, viper, or vette, could beat it very easily. It most likely had been modded, too.

[OvenMaster]

The reason that one could not take off the emissions plumbing on an older car was that it was, and remains, quite illegal to do so. Newer cars have the entire drivetrain engineered as a unit... you couldn't take the smog plumbing off modern engines and have them start up, never mind run. The pre-electronically controlled engines (<1977 or so) with air pumps, thermal reactors, air injection manifolds, electric chokes, etc. just had all that crap hung on them as a factory retrofit to engines designed in the 50's. But the smog plumbing on them must remain installed, thanx to Uncle Sam. The only mod I do recall reading was that the 1974 seat belt interlock system CAN be legally disabled.

Russ? I envy your learning to drive in a Corvair. I've always loved those cars as proof that Detroit could dare to be different, in style. I'd still love to get my hands on one today if I were rich. Best I can do at the moment is a 1:18 scale '63 Monza coupe sitting on top of my Yamaha amp!

Dan, IIRC an EMP would kill early (or any, for that matter) electronic ignition systems, yes? Meaning only point systems would work? Or would even the rectifier diodes in the alternators go, too?

Tom

[harmkard330guy]

What is it with all of the grand marquises? I hate ford lincon mercury basicly hate the whole ford motor division. Because there unreliability in there cars my uncle had a ford windstar not even a month and had engine problems. He put a new engine in there. I dont know why if it was my van it would be headed strait for the junkyard but. That engine lasted him about 3 months or so and then he had electrical problems with it now that was a pos van.

[Sandy G]

If you wanna read something that will chill yer shite about EMP, get the book "Warday" by Jim Kunetka & Whitley Strieber.EMP would not only kill most of our precious electronic devices, it would also kill the test equipment to fix 'em with..Tube stuff would be pretty much unfazed. There's a long-held rumor the military keeps BUNCHES of R-390As ready to go "just in case"-an R-390A should remain operational as long as there was AC power or it wasn't melted by a fireball.-Sandy G.

[OvenMaster]

Everyone has horror stories about certain makes. Brand loyalty is one thing; logic is another. One guy will say Fords are crap on wheels, while others will say that GM=Garbage Motors, and another will say Mopars blow. It all goes by personal experience. The only fair way to say what make or company stinks is if you yourself have owned one and had to pay (or not) to fix it. My dad hadn't owned a Ford since the early 50's and for nearly 50 years thought they were junk. He had been a GM man since then, except having had a trio of AMC's ('63 Rambler Classic, '67 Ambassador convertible, '71 Matador) and one Mopar ('78 Volare) Because he wanted a station wagon in decent shape, low miles, etc, and GM no longer had an offering that was acceptable, he was gently persuaded to buy a Taurus wagon. He loves it.

If the car companies REALLY made junk on wheels, enough people would not buy them and the companies would go out of business. That said, the only make I think, based on reputation, that most everyone would agree on as being rolling pieces of $hit would be the Yugo.

All the Grand Marquis that are on the road are usually owned by folks who like big comfortable cars.

Tom

[OvenMaster]

If you wanna read something that will chill yer shite about EMP, get the book "Warday" by Jim Kunetka & Whitley Strieber.EMP would not only kill most of our precious electronic devices, it would also kill the test equipment to fix 'em with..Tube stuff would be pretty much unfazed. There's a long-held rumor the military keeps BUNCHES of R-390As ready to go "just in case"-an R-390A should remain operational as long as there was AC power or it wasn't melted by a fireball.-Sandy G.
Fat lot of good the internet would do Uncle Sam then, if all the PC's connected to it for defense purposes became paperweights, eh? We wouldn't be able to shoot back.
Tom

[Sandy G]

I kept waitin' for 'em to offer a "De Sade" option package on the Grand Marquis...My mom's best friend's husband was the Ford dealer here. Once he got a full-boat Country Squire for his personal use, & was perplexed by this strange rattle in the rear passenger door. They took the door panel off, nothing amiss-Hello,what's this ?-an assembly line worker had tied a lugnut on a string, & attached it to a piece of metal on the inside top of the door-the lugnut would only rattle evry so often when they went around a curve, etc. There was an anomymous note attached:"Ha-ha !! You found me, you son-of-a-bitch !"....-Sandy G.

[Chad Hauris]

What is it with all of the grand marquises? I hate ford lincon mercury basicly hate the whole ford motor division. Because there unreliability in there cars my uncle had a ford windstar not even a month and had engine problems. He put a new engine in there. I dont know why if it was my van it would be headed strait for the junkyard but. That engine lasted him about 3 months or so and then he had electrical problems with it now that was a pos van.

I agree with you on the windstar, we had one and it was full of problems. Ditto on the Aerostar...however the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic has always been a mature, conservatively designed car that has been pretty good for me...I think all of the manufacturers had "lemon" models and great models so I don't think it's fair to say that all products are bad from a certain mfr.

[Bigerik]

Having worked in auto parts for a number of years, I for a long time tried to desperately buy into the "old cars are better myth". Still have the stacks of bills and memories of breakdowns to prove it ain't the case. Just ask my wife. She has MANY stories to share about it...
I will not go into hobbies, looks, fun, etc. All of those things are vaild reasons for choosing to drive anything. Hey, I have kicked around getting an old Lada 1500 as something fun to play with. Rational decision? Of course not! An Italian car built by the Soviets?
As far as driving goes, the newer cars are unbeatable. They just don't require the amount of work that the older ones did. Especially the Japanese ones. If everyone drove a Camry or an Accord, the auto parts stores would be out of business. It is not unusual for a Japanese car to use the same tranny to the grave. Unusual for an American car not to have it rebuilt at 70 to 100k. They are just built differently.
Performance? The new cars outperform the old. No questions. My 2.5 V6 (designed by Porsche with production tooling done by Cosworth) 5speed Contour with only the most minor changes will outrun my 78 TA WS6 400 with the hot W72 engine and shortest gears. Gas mileage? No comparison. While I loved the handling of my TA (BIG sway bars and factory urethane bushings) I am totally confident that the Contour will take it on any track. With the limiter removed it will run 140 mph in lots of comfort for my 6'4 frame.Most cars of the late 60's ran 16 to 18 second quarter miles. The hot ones were running 14's and 15's. VERY few the big Hemis and hotest chevys got into the 13's. And as the factory guys of the time are more than willing to admit now, those cars that were given to magazines were no where even close to stock.
Safety? No comparison! While 5000lbs of sheetmetal might make you FEEL safe, new cars are designed to sacrifice themselves and save YOU! It is not because of poor design that they fold up. Folding up is GOOD design. As they fold up, they absorb the energy of the crash, so you don't have to. The chances of surviving a crash in something like a Taurus or Camry as compared to a 75 LTD, for example is MANY times higher. Add airbags to the equation, and it is night and day. Why do you think total fatalities have stayed the same or dropped over the past 30 years, when miles driven has exploded? And that is just passive safety. ANY modern car will outhandle and outstop any of the older cars. Add in things like ABS and traction control, or even disc brakes and your chances of even getting into an accident diminish greatly.
Are parts costs higher? Sure they are. But repairs required are so much less and costs to run them are so much lower, that it easily balances out.
I will in no way disparage anyone who chooses to drive an older car. I understand the appeal in so many ways (just saw a Jag XK-120 yeserday. Nothing modern even comes close). But as cars, as transportation devices, the new ones are just so much better that there really is no way to compare them.
As I said, just my 2 cents...
Erik

[Toasted Almond]

I bought a brand new Windstar for the wife in Nov 2001. We have had nothing but oil changes, and a couple seat belt recalls. EVERYBODY has their own tales of woe, and success.

[Sandy G]

Biggest problem I've had w/my Excursion is that it LOVES gasoline-LOTS & LOTS of it. Other than that, it's been pretty well trouble-free. But it is great jolly fun to play Hog-of-The-Road w/it- Damn the Toyotas ! Full speed Ahead !! Keelhaul the Bosun's Mate !! Jettison the Mizzen Mast !! Fire when ready, Mr Gridley !! Outta my way, you cheap, insignificant lower forms of life !! Do not perturb me, nematodes, lest ye be struck down by a 6.8 liter V-10 !!..... -Sandy G.

[blohrd3]

I love old cars, but I must agree that many of the cars from the big three in the 70 were crap, the problem, planned obsolecents. At the time these cars were all that were offered, so thats all we bought. Until the oil crisis in the 70 when more people went with european and asian models, and found that they were well built and reliable. In summer I drive a 1977 Lincoln town car custom, 460cu, double bbl carb. the kids in my neighborhood are all hopping up these 4 cy, sometimes when I find them sitting at a stoplight their little cars buzzn like an angry hornet, I'll ease up beside them and smoke the tires on the lincoln. Than go immediately to the gas station, cause I just used about 10 gallons.

[Toasted Almond]

Sandy's on a roll.

[DanTana]

I'd love to see an Excursion with a full blown mast and sails on it :)

[Toasted Almond]

Yeah! Flying the Jolly Roger with Sandy behind the wheel!

[fabvsix]

I'm 45 and recall my first vehicle I drove. A 1949 Chevy PU. 3 speed on the column. Then my father gave me a 1960 Plymouth Valiant station wagon which had a straight "slanted" 6. This car was bullet proof. I drove it well over 300,000 miles as the floor was rusting out.....After that, disgusted with 1970's American cars, my family went Japanese and have remained till this day.
This is what I drive today "when I drive" .........What a great car ! They happen to be the BEST cars I've owned year to date. Still NOT fond of American cars !

[Carmine]

Did anybody really click on the above pics? :D

While Jack makes a somewhat valid point (newer cars are better in some ways), the idea that anything as complex and varied as every car built from 1970-1985 can be grouped together as "junk" is nuts. :screwy:

There is truth to the idea that build quality was sloppy at US manufactuers in the 70s. At the same time, pressure was on to implement things like 5 MPH bumpers, emission controls, and so forth because of GOVERMENT MANDATE, not because the technology was "ready". Naturally, this put a strain on engineering resources and many other areas of design suffered for it.

I might add that this was a US government mandate, and that many of the so-called "green" nations went for years after without some of the most basic safety and emissions standards that we had in the US starting in 1967.

I found some old newspapers in a house I re-did from 1973. There was a short interview with a Chrysler president. His quote, as I recall was: "When I meet with my European counterparts, they think we're crazy for implementing all of these [safety and emmisions] standards." I'm going to dig around for that interview and scan it.

"Evil" GM invented catalytic convertors and tons of other emission controls, as well as air-bags in the 70s. Chrysler in the 70s pioneered the side impact beam and "unibelt" one-piece 3-way harness that you use today. They also had ABS in '71, and sold climate control systems to Mercedes-Benz.

Before we all declare the Japanese to be something more than human, let us recall that they simply began selling the same product overseas that they built domestically for decades... That is, small simple cars, and that's what "our" market SUDDENLY demanded in 1973 as a reaction to the make-believe oil crisis. (Ok, not suddenly... but the demand for subcompacts was very small before 1973). Had Japanese customers wanted loads of HP, leather seats, ice cold A/C and power windows, I'm sure they would have sold a bunch of American cars in Japan. Simple cars do not have complex, nor as many, problems.

Add to that the whole idea of "the big three" being part of the "establishment", and you can see why there is so much anti-domestic venom out there from the boomer generation.

People also seem to give the Japanese (and Europeans) a "pass" on a lot of their failures. Mazda would have gone under in the early 70s because of engine failures if not for a cash infusion from Ford. The first Nissan minivans caught fire so often, the company was forced to buy many of them back. Enter the words "toyota" and "engine sludge" into Google and see what happens. I'm not calling them JUNK, just saying that perception isn't a direct match to reality.

I drove a 25,000 mile '70 Fury (full size) with a 318 from Oakland, CA to Detroit, MI last year and had highway mileage in the 20s through the flat country. So the idea that economy didn't exist is bunk.

IF you are willing to do the more frequent upkeep, you don't have to give up much to drive a 70s car everyday (as I sometimes do). If you don't keep them in tune, they will begin to drive crappy and get lousy mileage. New cars can compensate for this with computer controls.

When I'm feeling lazy, I drive my 198,000 mile DIS/FI 1993 Chrysler. If I want a little retro time-travel, and am willing to occasionally adjust a carb, I take one of my old cars. It's that simple.

[Kamakiri]

****These are my opinions. I don't have to defend them, they are mine and they are staying that way. I've owned over 80 cars, and you can't change my mind :D

The following is my opinion based on 16 years in the automotive parts biz.....

There is a good reason that most cars of the 70s aren't on the road......80% or better are rustbucket junk. You guys that don't live in the rust belt don't understand HOW bad they are.

I see people on different Acura and Honda forums all the time, kids in their late teens and 20s that drool over Monte Carlos, etc......"old school" as they put it (1973-1987 Monte Carlos are one of the biggest rustbucket POS ever made). That's great until you have to drive them every day. Carb rebuilds, bi-yearly spark plug changes, cap-rotor-wires-points-condenser every fall or spring. Remember back when you stayed away from a car with more than 70,000 miles?

You also have to take into account the time investment factor. For example, I have a wife and two kids, work ~50 hours per week, and do a LOT with my family, including camping, etc. Now.....add in the time, repairs, and maintenance of an old car as a daily driver, repairs, etc, and it no longer becomes worth the nostalgic value. If cars and working on them is your main interest, that's different.

So let's take my vehicle. I drive a 1985 Chevy conversion van. It has the most underpowered small block in history, a computerized Q-junk carb, and is laden with ridiculous emissions equipment that does very little to deter penguins from getting a suntan. Is it reliable? Yes, but only because when I have to work on it, I do it after the kids are in bed or I have it done in the shop. Why do I own it? It's the only thing that I could afford that could carry the family, all their stuff, and pull the camper and boat. Are new vehicles better and vastly more reliable? Absolutely.

The only reason that people disregard new vehicles as junk is because they haven't had the time to wax philosophical about them yet. Sure, that old '64 Bel Air I had would start in any weather, but so did my '89 Civic with over 200K on it. Car for car, the Civic was vastly superior in every possible way, except cargo capacity. I'll remember the '64 more fondly than the Civic, but only because it was cooler.....which is what old cars have in abundance.

I've worked with Ford, Honda, Acura, Jaguar, Daewoo, and Mitsubishi. I've also seen more used cars come through the shops than I can ever remember. My opinion: Japan builds a better product. Better in every sense of the word. I still love American cars, but pick up a Consumer Reports. Those who think they are wrong or part of some leftist organization should spend some time in a repair shop.

[merrylander]

The older cars that I 'lusted' after was mostly a question of style, they just had a distinct appearance and you new at first sight which marque they were. But for maintenance reasons they would probably make you seek out a good honest mechanic.

My Ford Probe (Ford body, Mazda drivetrain) gave me 130,000 reasonable miles but the radiator started leaking at 75,000 miles due to poor design (Metal body, plastic end bells, different coefficients of expansion, not good) and the rear main oil seal started leaking at about 90,000 miles, not badly enough to pay $300 to change a $15 part.

Oddly enough the '81 Buick Century that I traded in on it had 140,000 miles on a 3.8 liter V6 and was only burning a quart between oil changes. Worked pretty well after I removed the computer that was supposed to control the carb - stupid design.

The two Impala LSs we now drive are 5 star crash tested, the only full size cars to get a fuel economy rating from the EPA, shocked the heck out of me when I first got mine and found that the 3.8 V6 burned no more fuel that the Probe 2.2 four in my daily commute. When we drove to Nova Scotia I was getting 30 and better MPG on the highway.

Regarding the rust bucket complaints of the 70s models, my Ford Meteor 2-door hardtop rusted from within because of some steel they were importing. The first Honda Civics were terrible rust buckets with all the salt used around Ottawa, but Florence's 78 Monte Carlo 5.0 liter still had a solid body when we gave it to the Sally Ann., so did my 81 Century for that matter.

It took a while, no thanks to the NHTSA and EPA, but our cars are now a match for anything the Asians can throw our way. I have allso owned or driven a lot of European iron and some were fun, others were a downright PITA.

Rob