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.
Like some others have said, cars before the late 80's and early 90's were primarily mechanical machines with some pretty simple point to point wiring. Reliability was modest, they were prone to moisture problems, needed constant lubrication, needed tune up's frequently, front end alignments, shocks, tires every 40- 50K miles, brakes maybe once a year. Prior to the 70's cars didn't even have seat belts, your protection was to be more massive than the car you hit or got hit by. But a new car was typically under $4K in the 70's and under $10K until 90's. Now, cars are high tech, you're pretty much driving by wire as almost everything in the car is going through the computer. The engineering is far more refined and you now get almost as much horsepower from a 4 cylinder as many people got with 8 cylinders back in the day. Economy, safety, reliability, comfort and style are part in parcel for the new generation of cars, but at a cost. So, yes, they probably require less maintenance than a generation or two ago, but a lot more expensive. My old toolbox consisted of a good socket set, wrenches, pliers and screwdrivers, a timing light and maybe a continuity tester. The modern mechanic probably needs a metric and sae socket set, a fancy automotive computer analyzer, a multimeter, and a subscription to an engineering hotline. Whereas the simplicity of old cars allowed someone with reasonable mechanical ability to maintain our cars back then, now it takes a technician or engineer to troubleshoot and repair, that costs $$$.
Sounds like more underrating of old cars.
Brakes needing replacing "maybe once a year?" My '66 Dart GT was driven about 8,000 miles per year and once went 8 years with the same brakes. On most old cars, shocks lasted many years as did alternators, water pumps, fuel pumps, etc.
Tune-up about every few years (and they did not cost much and were simple).
"Comfort and style" with new cars? Did I read that right? I don't care for the blob- or egg-shaped "styling" with the chopped-off rear end at all. I also don't find them comfortable. The seats are too firm in general and the ride is stiff with many cars.
As for horsepower, old V-8s VS modern 4-cylinder, those basic V-8s were mildly-tuned; had a low-compression ratio and mild cam timing. Also, they were not turbo- or supercharged.
Brakes needing replacing "maybe once a year?" My '66 Dart GT was driven about 8,000 miles per year and once went 8 years with the same brakes. On most old cars, shocks lasted many years as did alternators, water pumps, fuel pumps, etc.
Tune-up about every few years (and they did not cost much and were simple).
"Comfort and style" with new cars? Did I read that right? I don't care for the blob- or egg-shaped "styling" with the chopped-off rear end at all. I also don't find them comfortable. The seats are too firm in general and the ride is stiff with many cars.
As for horsepower, old V-8s VS modern 4-cylinder, those basic V-8s were mildly-tuned; had a low-compression ratio and mild cam timing. Also, they were not turbo- or supercharged.
Sounds like underrating of new cars.
I didn't just pull those service items out of thin air, I was a mechanic in a service station in my younger years and did more brake jobs, tune ups, water pumps, fuel pumps etc., etc., than I ever want to do again. Yeah, a lot of people could get more out of brakes and tires, but we saw people year after year come in for their "annual" brake job. As for comfort and style, I think the average family car (not car show gems), had vinyl bench seats and pretty spongy suspensions, although it was easier getting bubblegum off the seat then than with cloth or leather now, style was what it was for the day. The V-8's, you're right, most cars didn't have a high performance engine, but neither do all of today's cars, but we used to get maybe 12-14 mpg with a ~250 hp 2bbl 350 cu. in. (5.7L) engine in Dad's Malibu, I get about 30- 35 mpg in my new car with 200 hp 2.4L 4 cyl direct fuel injected engine.
You don't like the new styling or the changes(?), the manufacturers aren't necessarily marketing to you unless you're after a retro car, they market to the masses and what sells. Hey look, I'm not trashing the old cars, I have some really fond memories of my cars throughout my life, there's even a couple I wouldn't mind having again, but I also appreciate the progress we've made in technology and safety even if I don't particularly just love the container it all sits in or the price. Peace buddy!
BTW- funny you should mention the 66 Dart GT, my brother had the 68 and I had the 70 Duster 340, really loved that car.
I don't agree with that. Now a $10 Bluetooth obd dongle can tell you more about your car than you could hope to know in the 80s/90s without a huge bank of hundreds of gauges. Throw a check engine light, just pull the code and look it up online. There's probably even a YouTube video walking you through how to fix it.
I agree. I just picked up one of these off Amazon and bought the premium version of Torque form Google play store. When it's mated to an app on a smartphone you definitely get way more info than a standard scan tool. It even helps you to narrow down the codes so you can figure the problem out quicker, along with different diagnostic modes you can run from the app.
As for horsepower, old V-8s VS modern 4-cylinder, those basic V-8s were mildly-tuned; had a low-compression ratio and mild cam timing. Also, they were not turbo- or supercharged.
That's why I like the older cars...
I don't like how they are squeezing so much HP out of 4 cylinders... To me, having it turbo (almost no one uses supercharger now?) charged seems to decrease the engine life? I might be wrong and all, but I'll stick with non-turbo and just get one with as many cylinders that I need...
But I miss rotary engines I know people had problems with carbon build up... but that's because they didn't take care of it. Needs more engine oil and to burn off carbon and engine last just as long
maybe my "mid-life" crisis project is to put a rotary into my subaru outback It should be old enough by then that I won't mind turning it into a project car. I wonder what else I need to replace to get it to work.
I remember the cars I grew up with in the late 50s and 60s. They always leaked around the windshield and back windows. You'd always see nice looking cars with poorly done caulk jobs around the trim.
They were tuned up under a shade tree PP&C (plugs, points, & condenser). The carburetor needed frequent adjustments as did the engine timing. Paint needed frequent waxing and polishing to stay reasonably sharp looking. Many cars had factory paint jobs that looked like the peel of an orange. Chrome trim got rusty and came loose and fell off. Bench seats were uncomfortable and manual shifters were usually three on the tree. Headliners drooped down and were either poorly glued back or discarded entirely.
If you lived in a snowy area cars frequently rusted through on the rocker panels and above the headlights. Your beautiful new car was considered old in just 50 thousand miles or so. Big V8 engines that guzzled premium (ethyl) gasoline at around 10 miles a gallon produced under 200 horsepower.
Not all cars were like this: just the ones I remember. DeSoto, Rambler, Pontiac, Mercury, Plymouth, etc were household names. You grew up as a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler person. Foreign cars were few and basically terrible.
Are the new cars better? In my humble opinion: Heck yes!
An HONEST COMPETENT factory trained tech. One who won't take advantage of it as an opportunity to get extra money from you by telling you it needs a lot more work than it really does, and who won't misdiagnose it from not having paid enough attention during the factory training. Simply finding such a tech is an advanced skill in itself. Most people are not very good at that skill.
As the technology behind the CEL codes keeps improving, more and more people will be able to know what's really happening and not let mechanics take advantage of them.
A $1000 repair job can often be done by ordering $100 in parts from Amazon, after you do enough Googling and forum discussion to know what parts to replace.
But it's also a good reason to only own popular cars. The more popular, the easier it is to Google for discussions of your exact problem.
Absolutely correct. Great reason to own cars with a decent distribution - readily available parts and lots of places to go for information.
I don't think so. I did not say anything about the reliability or longevity of new cars.
Quote:
I didn't just pull those service items out of thin air, I was a mechanic in a service station in my younger years and did more brake jobs, tune ups, water pumps, fuel pumps etc., etc., than I ever want to do again. Yeah, a lot of people could get more out of brakes and tires, but we saw people year after year come in for their "annual" brake job. As for comfort and style, I think the average family car (not car show gems), had vinyl bench seats and pretty spongy suspensions, although it was easier getting bubblegum off the seat then than with cloth or leather now, style was what it was for the day. The V-8's, you're right, most cars didn't have a high performance engine, but neither do all of today's cars, but we used to get maybe 12-14 mpg with a ~250 hp 2bbl 350 cu. in. (5.7L) engine in Dad's Malibu, I get about 30- 35 mpg in my new car with 200 hp 2.4L 4 cyl direct fuel injected engine.
My father was also a mechanic, before he became an auto mechanics instructor. I have personal experience with old cars, having owned several, along with many friends. Heavy-duty suspension was a low-cost option for many old cars. My '66 Dart GT V-8 delivered 14 to 20 mpg. Many new cars don't have the carrying capacity of many of the old cars (6-passenger and a large trunk).
Quote:
You don't like the new styling or the changes(?), the manufacturers aren't necessarily marketing to you unless you're after a retro car, they market to the masses and what sells. Hey look, I'm not trashing the old cars, I have some really fond memories of my cars throughout my life, there's even a couple I wouldn't mind having again, but I also appreciate the progress we've made in technology and safety even if I don't particularly just love the container it all sits in or the price. Peace buddy!
No, I certainly don't like the new styling or changes! Way too many lookalike/cookie-cutter cars out there. I dislike the chopped-off rear end, the sloping front end, the lack of chrome, no whitewall tires, no vinyl roof option, no bench seat option, very few interior color choices, etc.
Quote:
BTW- funny you should mention the 66 Dart GT, my brother had the 68 and I had the 70 Duster 340, really loved that car.
I really enjoyed my '66 Dart GT. Which is probably why I drove it regularly for 16 years. I would not mind owning another one just like the one I had and maybe I will someday.
Like some others have said, cars before the late 80's and early 90's were primarily mechanical machines with some pretty simple point to point wiring. Reliability was modest, they were prone to moisture problems, needed constant lubrication, needed tune up's frequently, front end alignments, shocks, tires every 40- 50K miles, brakes maybe once a year. Prior to the 70's cars didn't even have seat belts, your protection was to be more massive than the car you hit or got hit by. But a new car was typically under $4K in the 70's and under $10K until 90's. Now, cars are high tech, you're pretty much driving by wire as almost everything in the car is going through the computer. The engineering is far more refined and you now get almost as much horsepower from a 4 cylinder as many people got with 8 cylinders back in the day. Economy, safety, reliability, comfort and style are part in parcel for the new generation of cars, but at a cost. So, yes, they probably require less maintenance than a generation or two ago, but a lot more expensive. My old toolbox consisted of a good socket set, wrenches, pliers and screwdrivers, a timing light and maybe a continuity tester. The modern mechanic probably needs a metric and sae socket set, a fancy automotive computer analyzer, a multimeter, and a subscription to an engineering hotline. Whereas the simplicity of old cars allowed someone with reasonable mechanical ability to maintain our cars back then, now it takes a technician or engineer to troubleshoot and repair, that costs $$$.
Shoulder belts became mandatory on all cars built after Jan. 1, 1968. Cadillac and a few other makes had a seat belt option as far back as the 1950s.
My '66 Plymouth Fury VIP had retractable lap belts (visible at the lower right). Incidentally, that bench seat was soft, plush and very comfortable.
Shoulder belts became mandatory on all cars built after Jan. 1, 1968. Cadillac and a few other makes had a seat belt option as far back as the 1950s.
My '66 Plymouth Fury VIP had retractable lap belts (visible at the lower right). Incidentally, that bench seat was soft, plush and very comfortable.
I stand corrected on the seat belts Fleet, seems like it was later, but oh so many years ago. LOL though, the car we had for drivers ed was a '68 or '69 Fury,a local dealership supplied it and it was pretty well decked out. But the front seat was pretty cushy, I think it was a full size blue velvet sofa, man that car was big. I can't imagine the kids today learning parallel parking in a car about six feet wide by maybe twelve feet long.
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.
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.
I know people had problems with carbon build up... but that's because they didn't take care of it. Needs more engine oil and to burn off carbon and engine last just as long
It should be old enough by then that I won't mind turning it into a project car. I wonder what else I need to replace to get it to work.
