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.
Today's engines absolutely blow engines of the past off this planet in every which way.
What was so good about engines of the 60s? Though they were simple, they were much less reliable. They sucked fuel, spit it into the atmosphere, produced lower power per displacement and didn't start on first try.
Absolutely nothing. These are people just yearning for a nostalgic past. What is it, like a big block 6.0L V8 from the 60s produced only 300hp whereas a super/turbocharged 2.5L 4 cylinder can produced the same amount of horsepower now?
There are a few reasons. Longevity, for one. I would like to see how a 2014 engine is running in the year 2064. (The engines in my 38-year old 500-cu-in Cadillac and in my 45-year-old '69 472-cu-in Cadillac are running just fine; never rebuilt, too). Generous low-end torque, for another. Easy to work on with some exceptions. Smooth, reliable power for yet another reason.
Quote:
These are people just yearning for a nostalgic past. What is it, like a big block 6.0L V8 from the 60s produced only 300hp whereas a super/turbocharged 2.5L 4 cylinder can produced the same amount of horsepower now?
It's not just the nostalgia factor. Because many car enthusiasts under 35 years old love the classics. Many of those 300 hp '60s engines were mildly tuned. Easy to pick up another 100+ hp with a cam change, bigger carb and headers. In fact, that is exactly what many owners did back then (and they didn't have to worry about it passing a smog test). Also, don't forget torque. Quite a few modern engines don't have the torque that many '60s engines did.
I much prefer today's "appliances" over yesterday's death traps, sorry I mean cars
Are you for real? I would feel much safer in an older car made out of steel and iron over a car made today full of plastic. Every time I see car accidents involved with newer cars all you see is plastic parts all over the road. Older cars would be smashed and dented up and all you would see is glass on the road.
I have lots of older family members that drove cars from the 50s on up and they are alive. If anything is a death trap it's the plastic throw away garbage they make these days.
But they do look the same. The only differences is grills and light designs. Everything else is the same.
No not at all. That is bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
No, it isn't. I'm 50 and have lived though most of the eras talked about here and I find more differences amongst cars now than at most points in history. I can EASILY tell them (modern cars) apart at a glance.
This ^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
'50s and '60s car were not "all big, long, boxes of steel." The 1964 Ford Mustang was certainly not a big or long car. Nor was the Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Dart, Chevy II and Nova, Ford Falcon, Rambler American, etc.
Just making brash generalizations like others here. They all followed a trend though, let's not act like every 60s or 70s car was unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie1278
Are you for real? I would feel much safer in an older car made out of steel and iron over a car made today full of plastic. Every time I see car accidents involved with newer cars all you see is plastic parts all over the road. Older cars would be smashed and dented up and all you would see is glass on the road.
I have lots of older family members that drove cars from the 50s on up and they are alive. If anything is a death trap it's the plastic throw away garbage they make these days.
The cars are designed that way, parts breaking away absorbs the impact depending on it's design.
I'd rather the safety features of today's cars than my current old car.
The cars are designed that way, parts breaking away absorbs the impact depending on it's design.
I'd rather the safety features of today's cars than my current old car.
I know how they are "engineered" to blow apart and in theory save lives.
My 1997 tahoe has 4 wheel ABS and dual air bags but my truck is mostly steel and iron. My bumpers are all steel with a REAL chrome finish. If my bumper hit one the plastic cars on the road at a good speed it would destroy it. You could always hope your airbags pop I have seen a lot of car accidents with newer cars and the airbags never came out. Nothing is full proof no matter how much engineering is involved. They simply don't BUILD things to last anymore. If you get into a somewhat minor accident with newer cars almost always without question they are considered totalled.
Just making brash generalizations like others here. They all followed a trend though, let's not act like every 60s or 70s car was unique.
Those generalizations much more fit modern cars, with their cookie-cutter/blob styling. There were quite a few '60s and '70s cars that had unique styling.
Car companies have always had a "era" look to them. Gm always used the same style roofs and glass in it's various divisions, so did Chrysler, Ford, Studebaker, AMC. New vehicles actually have more differences in rof designs and glass used than older vehicles, but below the roof, is that a ford? a gm ? a kia? is it a Toyota? Hard to tell !!!! And I understand why you don't see the various names on the cars today, such as on front, sides and rear that is easily read because if my car company made something that abstract, I wouldn't want my name on it either !!!
Are you for real? I would feel much safer in an older car made out of steel and iron over a car made today full of plastic. Every time I see car accidents involved with newer cars all you see is plastic parts all over the road. Older cars would be smashed and dented up and all you would see is glass on the road.
I have lots of older family members that drove cars from the 50s on up and they are alive. If anything is a death trap it's the plastic throw away garbage they make these days.
Enough said. No "crazy driver behind the wheel" to blame in this test. So much for your theory that old cars would only have glass on the road
How many 1959 cars do you see on the road? When i say older cars I'm talking about 90s like my 97 Tahoe. Do a video of my Tahoe vs your Prius and come back lol
A video showing a 55 year old car vs a 5 year old car yeah that's a fair comparison. How much of the 1959s frame was rusted and compromised? Was that a completely torn down and rebuilt including the frame? If not ofcorse a rust bucket is going to crunch like that. Show me the same video with a 1959 right off the assembly line and lets see the results...if that was possible.
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 would feel much safer in an older car made out of steel and iron over a car made today full of plastic. Every time I see car accidents involved with newer cars all you see is plastic parts all over the road. Older cars would be smashed and dented up and all you would see is glass on the road.
I have seen a lot of car accidents with newer cars and the airbags never came out. Nothing is full proof no matter how much engineering is involved. They simply don't BUILD things to last anymore. If you get into a somewhat minor accident with newer cars almost always without question they are considered totalled.
