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 should have put a comma after "engine performance". What I meant was, that the true classic cars from way back in the days with all their wonderful cool, unique styling with tons of chrome, and steel, will never be reproduced again. Because of all the hardcore safety standards the Feds have implemented over time, we have ended up with new cars that look so much alike, have more plastic and cheap feeling materials used all over the body and inside the interior that they just don't feel substantial or like a real car to me compared to my classics.
The old big block engines of the past were great performers, some lasted longer than others, and at least you could modify them to access even more HP and Torque with the right aftermarket parts. Also they were smooth, slow turning beefy motors. Everything now is a 4 banger that whines and screams when pushed too hard. I'll take my silent V8's anyday of the week.
The older cars just had an overall feeling of quality because of the high quality fabrics, more heavier gauge steel, stainless trim, chrome metal used for the interior, and so on. Plastic deteriorates over time, it weakens, becomes brittle, and cracks. Metal doesn't have any of these problems, only rust is the killer. I can't imagine a new car today looking flawless 50 years from now, because the materials used in modern cars simply won't hold up for that long IMHO.
New vehicles are truly built like throwaway cars. They perform well and look great new, but how will the car feel in 20 years? How will the body hold up? The door hinges? The window seals? The engine and trans? Interior components, trim, and parts? When will the adhesives start to melt away and cause problems in the interior and or the body structure? How well the suspension hold up? How well will the car or truck do against door dings and dents or even against mother nature?
I see many older 60's cars that are in immaculate original condition that can't be explained. You can attribute it to high quality materials maybe where it was stored, but there's no denying that the older 50's-70's cars ( especially luxury cars) were built and feel much better even with their mechanical problems and lack of crush zones.
Older cars were built differently. I disagree that they were "better" built. Today's cars need almost no service for 100K miles other than oil changes. They start immediately no matter the temperature. Old "quiet" V8s weren't really that quiet. A modern Lexus V6 is quieter than a Town Car and the data proves it. Tons of noise under the hood from noisy pushrods, 3 belts, huge fans, etc.
When you see a great looking old car - it isn't because that car was built better. It is because the owner loves that car and took great care of it. Old cars rusted far faster than today's. I happen to dislike chrome immensely, so that has no appeal to me. I concede that some like it a lot. I like many old cars - mostly because of iconic styling. My faves are C2 Corvettes, early T-birds, and an early 1960s Lincoln Continental.
As for safety.....the data CLEARLY shows cars are much safer today. Far fewer people die in car accidents than the did before. A Honda Civic hitting an F150 today produces fewer deaths than two Roadmasters hitting each other. With more miles driven, more traffic, etc. death rates are significantly lower than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. I have never seen data that says drivers are better today.
To the people who say newer cars are safer because their are less life threatening injuries today that proves nothing. Their are way less cars from the 80s and 90s on the road to give an accurate comparison of what is safer. Most accidents today involve both of the cars being newer. If they could gather data of every accident involved between a newer car and an older car from the 80s and 90s I would agree.
In theory cars today are safer because of the safety ACCESSORIES like all the air bags besides the crumple zones. But obviously even with that engineering their are still fatalities from those "safer cars"
I can believe newer cars have better safety features sure but I'm not sold that they are constructed better and will last as long as stuff from the 90s and before. I can't see a KIA or a Sonic or whatever those throwaway cars are called lasting anywhere near 15 years without major problems or being safer then my older truck.
To the people who say newer cars are safer because their are less life threatening injuries today that proves nothing. Their are way less cars from the 80s and 90s on the road to give an accurate comparison of what is safer. Most accidents today involve both of the cars being newer. If they could gather data of every accident involved between a newer car and an older car from the 80s and 90s I would agree.
Given the much higher death rates per mile driven even as recently as 25 years ago, I don't understand how the point is in dispute. But I don't really understand this at all. Could you explain some more?
To the people who say newer cars are safer because their are less life threatening injuries today that proves nothing. Their are way less cars from the 80s and 90s on the road to give an accurate comparison of what is safer. Most accidents today involve both of the cars being newer. If they could gather data of every accident involved between a newer car and an older car from the 80s and 90s I would agree.
I can believe newer cars have better safety features sure but I'm not sold that they are constructed better and will last as long as stuff from the 90s and before. I can't see a KIA or a Sonic or whatever those throwaway cars are called lasting anywhere near 15 years without major problems or being safer then my older truck.
You are mixing up two completely different things: safety and durability. We are talking about safety, while you are drawing the incorrect conclusion that modern cars are less durable (an assumption without any evidence) and therefore less safe.
There is fatality data proving modern cars are more safe than those from the 80's and 90's. We won't know how durable modern cars are for another 5-10 years, but looking at stuff that was produced in the mid 2000's and comparing them to cars from the 80's and 90's, I think we can confidently say that cars are better built today, especially compacts.
The jury is still out whether today's complex, technology-laden machines will be as easy to keep running in the future, but that is a totally different debate.
Guys sorry, but with safety testing and safety engineering, it's a FACT that cars are safer to day than ever before, If you argue against that fact, you are literally stupid. I've been working with cars for 35 years, and doing bodywork and crash repair, starting out with vintage cars and working with modern cars. Modern crumple zones are designed to absorb energy so that it isn't transferred to the occupants, and then airbags and modern seatbelts do a better job of holding the occupants in place and protecting them. The cars LOOK worse after the crash, but they did a better job IN the crash.
Add to that the FACT that modern cars handle better and stop better and you can avoid accidents in them that you couldn't in older cars. I've OWNED older cars (and still do). There is no comparison. Sure, magazine articles from back in the day praised certain cars for good handling and braking, but they were comparing to other cars of the day, not to modern cars because modern cars didn't exist to compare to. So bringing out an old magazine article and saying "see, they loved the handling" is NOT a valid argument. So stop it, Fleet.
I don't think anyone is saying that '60s and earlier cars are safer than new ones.
While discussing it, some here (myself included), have forgotten that the topic of this thread is the "styling" (if you can call it that) of modern cars.
But one more off-topic point regarding braking... some '60s/'70s car could stop from 60-0 mph in about the same distance as more modern cars than people realize (110-125 feet). One example: a 1969 Imperial stopping in only 116.7 feet from that speed.
Muscle cars of the 60's and 70's are still the best looking cars ever. What car would you like to be seen in while crusing on a sat night a 1976 challenger or a
To the people who say newer cars are safer because their are less life threatening injuries today that proves nothing. Their are way less cars from the 80s and 90s on the road to give an accurate comparison of what is safer. Most accidents today involve both of the cars being newer. If they could gather data of every accident involved between a newer car and an older car from the 80s and 90s I would agree.
In theory cars today are safer because of the safety ACCESSORIES like all the air bags besides the crumple zones. But obviously even with that engineering their are still fatalities from those "safer cars"
I can believe newer cars have better safety features sure but I'm not sold that they are constructed better and will last as long as stuff from the 90s and before. I can't see a KIA or a Sonic or whatever those throwaway cars are called lasting anywhere near 15 years without major problems or being safer then my older truck.
You need to really look at what you wrote. Do you think new cars pick new cars to have accidents with? No. The cars on the road today are older than ever - average age 11.4 years. And there 53 million cars older than 16 years old. That data includes the 650,000+ "clunkers" taken off the road in the cash for clunkers program.
In 1995 the fatality rate was 1.73 per 100K miles driven. Those accidents involved cars built in the 80s and 90s. In 2012 the rate was 1.13. I'm sure that some of the reduction in fatalities is safety equipment - airbags, etc. that older cars didn't have. I can't say what the rates would be if old cars had airbags (etc.).
But newer cars are safer. They have better brakes, they handle better, they accelerate better. I'd rather have an accident in a modern car than one built 30 years ago.
You need to really look at what you wrote. Do you think new cars pick new cars to have accidents with? No. The cars on the road today are older than ever - average age 11.4 years. And there 53 million cars older than 16 years old. That data includes the 650,000+ "clunkers" taken off the road in the cash for clunkers program.
In 1995 the fatality rate was 1.73 per 100K miles driven. Those accidents involved cars built in the 80s and 90s. In 2012 the rate was 1.13. I'm sure that some of the reduction in fatalities is safety equipment - airbags, etc. that older cars didn't have. I can't say what the rates would be if old cars had airbags (etc.).
But newer cars are safer. They have better brakes, they handle better, they accelerate better. I'd rather have an accident in a modern car than one built 30 years ago.
Nope newer cars don't have to choose who they get into an accident when newer cars dominate the road ways. If you don't think newer cars make up the majority of vehicles on the road...i don't know what to tell you.
How can you know that a car made in this decade lasts 11.4 years?
The braking systems on cars from the 80s and 90s haven't changed for the most part. Drums, rotors, calipers, wheel cylinders all operate the same. We have different brake pad materials like ceramic and we have drilled and slotted rotors etc... but most new cars from the factory especially econoboxes don't come with performance brake parts just stock rotors and basic pads.
I think cars in the 70s were very easy to identify. Each manufacturer had its own style. Today they all look the same.
Even into the '80s that was true. You could look at most models and know it was a Chrysler, a VW, a Pontiac, whatever. Today? Forget it. We had to go car-shopping because our old car wasn't reliable anymore, and I never really noticed how much every car looked exactly alike, literally with almost identical styling. You pretty much have sedans with rounded edges, "crossovers" with rounded edges, SUVs, and pickups. That's it. The only cars I can ID on sight are the ones with distinctive styling, like the Beetle, the Mini, and some of the boxy cars like the Nissan Cube, Kia Soul, or Scion XB.
I almost got a Cube, because it was nice and roomy for a tall guy like me, and I liked the idea of driving a car that didn't look like everything else on the road. But the wife preferred a Forester, which I still can't pick out from any other crossover in the parking lot. Safety, durability, and reliability won out, and now I'm the proud owner of a $22,000 car I don't like the looks of and don't even enjoy driving!
I had to make sure it wasn't just me who thought this about modern cars, and sure enough, there are plenty of other people pointing it out. This guy put up a great post -- he picked eight cars at random and traced and overlapped their outlines. There is literally almost no difference in any of the shapes:
It seems to come down to federal safety regulations, aerodynamic considerations, and conservative tastes among car buyers. That last point is definitely true, because it seems like when an automaker takes a risk with something like the Cube and its offbeat styling, all people can do is gripe about how "ugly" it looks. Those cars are the ones with personalities, and people hate them! No wonder it's a sea of sameness out on the roads. People get what they ask for.
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'll take my silent V8's anyday of the week.
