Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes they are bland. People used to take pride in their cars because they had style. Now they're all the same. They're just mobile appliances now. It's increasingly difficult to tell them apart. They might as well be made by LG.
Hmmm, let me think....do I want a tuneup every 12,000 miles, or every 100,000 miles? Would I rather mess with points and distributor and carbarators, or not? Is it better to have a vehicle that will start every time no matter how cold it gets, or one that can't be turned over without a jump at 10 below zero?
Sorry, folks, I love to look at the old school cars because they are beautiful or interesting...but if you could take ANY 2013 vehicle back to 1968 it would be the most amazing car on the planet. Old school to see at the car shows, new school to own.
Some of us don't have all day to hike from the driver's seat to the trunk on those boats.
"Boats?" That '70 Dodge Challenger T/A 340-6 Pack is about the same size as the new Challenger.
And the wheelbase of the '69 Dodge Charger seen in the last photo is 117", a few inches less than the 120" of the new Charger.
What I posted were mid-sized and pony cars. If you think those are "boats," you should see the full-sized cars of that era (though I am sure you have).
Some of us don't like to look at modern cars with hilarious/ugly/soap dish "styling."
Quote:
And people think the wings on Civics and WRXes are obnoxious...
But the wings (stabilizer, actually) and the front nose cone on the '69 Charger Daytona and '70 Plymouth Superbird were there for a purpose... for better aerodynamics and to win NASCAR races! And they certainly blended in with the car better than the ridiculous one seen on foreign cars. Since the rear stabilizer was above the roof on those cars, they were actually functional, unlike those silly ones on the cars you mentioned, which shall remain nameless.
Hmmm, let me think....do I want a tuneup every 12,000 miles, or every 100,000 miles? Would I rather mess with points and distributor and carbarators, or not? Is it better to have a vehicle that will start every time no matter how cold it gets, or one that can't be turned over without a jump at 10 below zero?
If I needed a daily driver and a short commute, I would pick a classic car to drive. In fact, my '76 Cadillac Limousine was a daily driver to work for 5 years (4.5 miles one way). It has electronic ignition from the factory, so no points. Spark plugs last a long time... I don't even remember the last time I changed them. Same thing with the carburetor... hasn't needed a rebuilt for a long time. And if it does, no big deal; it doesn't cost much to do that. Before that, I drove my '66 Dart GT V-8 for over 15 years. I was so fun to drive, I kept it a long time. I could have bought a more recent, '80s or '90s car, but I preferred the Dart and its solid reliability.
Quote:
Sorry, folks, I love to look at the old school cars because they are beautiful or interesting...but if you could take ANY 2013 vehicle back to 1968 it would be the most amazing car on the planet. Old school to see at the car shows, new school to own.
If you were to take a 2013 vehicle back to 1968, the first reaction by people would be "Who styled that thing! Yes, they would be impressed with all the electronic and and computerized gadgets (until you told them how much they cost to repair), but they would probably faint at the thought of a $60,000 Cadillac! Not to mention the absence of traditional and true Cadillacs like the Fleetwood Brougham, Deville, Eldorado and the magnificent Fleetwood Seventy-Five 9-passenger sedan and limousine. They would probably say, "Where are the big Cadillacs?" And if you show them an Escalade, they would most likely say, "That's a van, not a car!"
"Boats?" That '70 Dodge Challenger T/A 340-6 Pack is about the same size as the new Challenger.
And the wheelbase of the '69 Dodge Charger seen in the last photo is 117", a few inches less than the 120" of the new Charger.
What I posted were mid-sized and pony cars. If you think those are "boats," you should see the full-sized cars of that era (though I am sure you have).
Some of us don't like to look at modern cars with hilarious/ugly/soap dish "styling."
But the wings (stabilizer, actually) and the front nose cone on the '69 Charger Daytona and '70 Plymouth Superbird were there for a purpose... for better aerodynamics and to win NASCAR races! And they certainly blended in with the car better than the ridiculous one seen on foreign cars. Since the rear stabilizer was above the roof on those cars, they were actually functional, unlike those silly ones on the cars you mentioned, which shall remain nameless.
Mid-sizers of that time were boats. Full sizers were ships and land yachts, depending on the model.
The one good thing you can say about cars from back then is that NASCAR of the time actually used them rather than fake imitation shells on something else. However, they provided little downforce, and probably acted more like rudders. We don't need rudders these days, we have steering and suspension that actually work, and only need something to hold the car down.
You see, these days we want no overhangs, they serve very little purpose except to annoy people when they block the walkway with it. Push the wheels out to the corners and give us more stability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.