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 say this to prove that I've got some cred when it comes to evaluating old cars vs. new cars. I just want to see what the rest of y'all have to say.
What I see as the definite advantages of new cars are amenities, and to a small extent, fuel economy. For example, the '87 Ram van was a big full-size vehicle and it would give me an average fuel economy of 15.5 mpg in mostly city-cycle driving. I never got it above 18 on the highway no matter what I tried - and that included 55 mph driving. At 65-70, it would give 16.5 - 17 mpg depending on conditions. The Tahoe, by comparison, weighs about the same as the van did and is about the same size, and gets 18.5 - 19.2 mpg average with mostly highway driving. (I've never driven it in "city cycle" so much that I could get an accurate fix on its average city-cycle fuel economy.) The most I've gotten out of it was 19.4 but I never tried the 55 mph thing. Obviously the advantage in fuel economy belongs to the Tahoe.
The Impala was, in essence, a full size car... even though it wasn't as "full size" as the luxury yachts from the 1970's and 1980's that I had. On the highway, it could get darn near 30 mpg. That blows away any number I ever managed with my other big cars... the '72 Cadillac got 13-14, the '85 Buick got no more than 17, and the '81 Caddy got up to 23 only by virtue of its (miraculously still functional) V8-6-4 variable displacement system.
As for amenities, I guess it could be said that most of my old cars had the same amenities that modern cars have, though they weren't usually functional. I doubt I have to explain how modern cars have more amenities, generally speaking. More ways to play music, more ways to adjust the climate control system, power everything, you name it. Did old cars have most of that? Sure, but not to the same extent and not in every car. Today's econoboxes have about the same level of amenities found in luxury cars of the 1970's and 1980's.
It could possibly be said that new cars have a safety advantage as well, but safety was one of the first things that car manufacturers worked on when looking to improve their cars. That being said, if there is a safety advantage in new cars, it is only under certain circumstances. I T-boned a 2004 Pontiac Grand Am with my '72 Caddy at 30-something miles per hour, which is essentially like hitting a stopped car, and not only was the car still running and drivable afterward, but the extent of my injury was a sore neck which went away in two days. (In the Grand Am, one passenger had a broken shoulder, one was airlifted to the hospital with a brain injury, and the other, frustratingly enough the drunk driver herself, walked away with minimal injury.) For all of the talk about airbags and crumple zones and all of this stuff, there is still no substitute for physics. If modern cars are designed to ABSORB impact and older-model cars are designed to REPEL impact, then an old car keeps going as it plows into a newer car as the new car absorbs the impact... and either way, the old car doesn't decelerate as immediately as you would think for it not having all of that fancy crash-absorbing "stuff". Perhaps in the old times when these cars were new, those characteristics were safety hazards but these days it seems that is not necessarily so. There's a reason why you CAN drive a 2002 Ford Crown Victoria in a demolition derby and you CANNOT drive a 1966 Chrysler Imperial. The Imperial was so crash-safe that it's essentially a shoo-in to win any demolition derby it enters!
I, too, have seen the video of the 1959 Impala crashing into the 2009 Malibu, and the Impala fell apart... but do we know anything about the structural integrity of that 50-year-old car? Was it still as "new", rust-free, etc. as it was when it was as new as the 2009 Malibu?
When it comes to old cars, I see their definite advantages as being:
First of all, comfort. I'm a tall guy with unusually long arms, and my wife is tall with unusually wide hips. Not only did it seem that old cars fit me better (not sure about my wife), but they had more comfortable seats. What's up with the seats in new cars? It feels like sitting on bricks! Man, my '85 LeSabre had PILLOW TOP seats! I know that the '76 Olds did also, but those pillows were worn down. The '85 New Yorker did also. Talk about comfort! And how about BENCH SEATS?! Lots of cars had bench seats back then, and by that I mean REAL bench seats... not these stupid split bench seats that have butt-impaling seat belt anchors protruding therefrom like evil automotive spikes! You used to be able to stuff the middle-seat belt into the seat if you weren't going to use it, and the seat belt anchors on each side were anchored to the floor using seat belt webbing, meaning that they were movable to fit just about anyone's shape. And who was the genius who invented those intruding consoles between the front bucket seats? I think his name was Satan. Oh, some of y'all use them as armrests? Older cars had FOLD-DOWN armrests in the middle of the bench seat, which could be used as the back of the middle seat. (Admittedly, the Tahoe has that too. That armrest also has storage. But I had to look far and wide to find Tahoes of that era that had bench seats. I'd say that less than 10% of them came so equipped. Most old cars had bench seats, and those that didn't sure did not have those stupid center consoles.)
Next, we have simplicity and cheap repairs. Without computers, there's no computerized crap to go blooey. Without electronic controls, there are no electronic parts to go blooey. I vividly recall having to do three automatic transmission replacements... one on the '72 Cadillac, one on the '76 Olds, and one on the '67 Buick. The Cadillac had a TH400, and when it got redone, the cost was barely over $1,000. (By the way, when it went out, it didn't "go out" completely. First gear was still workable without making strange sounds, and enabled the car to get up to 50 mph without red-lining the engine.) Same price for the TH400 on the '76 Olds. The '67 Buick had a "Dynaflow" (Powerglide) and the mechanic was able to put rebuilt TH350 guts into the same bellhousing because the bellhousings were the exact same size. Price - about $600.
When the Tahoe's transmission went out, it started making awful sounds and clunks, and its first gear wasn't quite so useful. Cost for replacement - $2,600. See, it was an electronically controlled 4-speed transmission, as opposed to the TH-series three-speed fully mechanical transmissions.
The '87 Ram's transmission went out as well... that's what earned it a trip to the junkyard. However, it went out very slowly. First thing that went was second gear - at 201,000 miles. Reverse, first and third still worked perfectly fine. It took another almost 16,000 miles for the transmission to get to the point where it often wouldn't shift at all from first into third.
Many other repairs seemed to cost far less for the older cars than for the newer cars. The '72 Caddy needed a WHOLE NEW SET OF EXHAUST PIPES FROM ENGINE TO TAILPIPE - cost me about $225, because they were just freaking exhaust pipes. The Tahoe recently needed about HALF of its exhaust piping replaced - cost me $648 because of the catalytic converters. The Cadillac didn't HAVE catalytic converters. I can replace V-belts myself. I can't do a serpentine, at least not without specialized tools that I don't have right now. I can easily replace a blown headlight on an older car. The replacement Sylvania halogen bulb will cost maybe $10 at the auto parts store. On a newer car? I cringe at the thought. The bulbs cost many times that amount and then there are those fancy molded lens covers that you have to get "de-fogged" every now and then. I could aim the headlights myself on an old car. The Tahoe has needed a headlight re-aimed ever since I got it. I've been told this is a fancy job that not even every mechanic knows how to do.
When an old car started running oddly, it was never that hard to diagnose nor fix the problem. New carburetor and installation - $400. New fuel injection system? $Thousands! Old car fuel pump? Mechanical, mounted on the engine, easy fix! Newer car fuel pump? Drain the tank, drop the tank, open the tank, THEN mess with a gasoline-soaked pump! New alternator? Old car - $30 and I installed it myself. Newer car - $100+ and I can't install it myself! Speedometer acting funky? Old car - pull the cable, grease it up, put it back in. Relatively easy DIY job, cost is almost zero. Newer car? There's no cable... it's all run with sensors. Good luck knowing exactly which sensor went bad, without that several-thousand-dollar scan tool. And as for the sensor... you'll pay a fortune for it. (I bought an oxygen sensor the size of a spark plug and it cost $75!)
The only disadvantage I've ever found to old cars in the repairs department was that it is sometimes tricky to find the requisite parts. However, if you drive a common model from its era, especially one that is still of interest to a lot of drivers today, you can generally find parts easily. And I never encountered a part I couldn't find by looking through Hemmings Motor News.
And then there is the "cool" factor. There is just nothing "cool" about modern cars. I could drive around in an old car that was nothing fancy in its time - such as a 1971 Chevy Nova - and get all kinds of looks, requests to sell it, etc. The '67 Buick Skylark was a rust bucket which definitely showed its age... but I lost count of how many times I had people ask me if I was selling it. Notes would show up on the windshield when I had it parked - names, phone numbers, "if you're interested in selling this car, call". The Skylark lasted until, I think, 1998. Take a 1984 Skylark, which would qualify for antique license plates in probably every state. Nobody would leave notes on the windshield of that type of car. It just isn't old enough to be cool, and that, these days, has nothing to do with age. When I was in high school, my buddy's 23-year-old VW bug was cool. The VW Bug was the simplest of simple cars back then. The modern-day equivalent might be a 1991 Hyundai Excel. Sorry, not cool. When I bought my '72 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, it was in 1999. 27 years old. These days the equivalent would be a 1987 Sedan DeVille. Y'ever seen those? Down-sized as of 1985. Not cool. The '84 Sedan DeVille still had some cool since it was a full-sized land yacht. 1985 and later - not cool. (The Fleetwood remained full-sized and cool. The Sedan DeVille was never the same after 1984.) When you see a big Caddy floating down the road, it's like "yeah baby!". When you see one of those lame excuses for a Caddy on the road, it's like "WHY did they do that?!?!"
So old cars don't get great gas mileage (compared to newer cars) but they are far cheaper to repair. (As for those of you who think that old cars need more repairs, that's a matter of opinion. I bought the 2010 Subaru brand new and that thing needed a couple of repairs right out of the factory. It was a decent car overall but at $25K+, I expect the car to be PERFECT.) They don't have as many amenities but they are much more "cool" compared to modern cars, save for some modern cars that will always be cool (such as sports / muscle cars). Safety-wise, it may be a draw. I say the winner is the older cars. I've had enough newer cars to feel that way.
not these stupid split bench seats that have butt-impaling seat belt anchors protruding therefrom like evil automotive spikes!
I just wanted to say that this statement was the funniest thing I have read today, and it will stay with me a long time. I've always thought those seat belt buckles that stick up were awkward and a little dangerous, but never knew what to call them. Now I do.
I think you have analyzed the pros and cons more than anyone else could even dream of touching.
Pros and cons to both. Since I don't have or want to get a car older than 20 years to drive, I just drive new ones while under warranty or lease them, turn them in and get another. I know every month I have to pay $X and not worry about it. No hidden multi-thousand dollar bills coming and the dealer has the parts.
I do want an older Jeep Wrangler, but any of those in any kind of decent condition cost accordingly.
I share many of the same feelings you do regarding "old vs new" cars. First off, newish modern cars really don't get any looks, are all pretty cheap looking and souless (unless they're a sports car), nor do they make a person feel unique like an older classic would.
Sure they drive great, and have wonderful modern amenities which really is just convenience items that makes our lives a little easier, but does that justify the entire feeling one receives while driving something new?
Maybe, maybe not, I know a lot of people are not truly car people and care about what they drive and how it looks, but to others, it does matter, and makes a huge difference in how one perceives you. Not that I care, but I love driving cars that not too many people are into, especially at my age, and that includes classic luxury Cadillac's and Lincolns.
Recently I've noticed locally a lot more older trucks from the 60's-70's Chevy's and Fords being driven around all over since those old trucks were built like tanks, as well as small vintage 60's BMW's and other funky classic 60's economy cars as they are essentially very easy work on, don't require smog, and do pretty good on gas.
This is the other argument regarding old vs new, the simplicity of repairs on an older classics compared to a modern car with all kinds of electrical circuits that can fry up and die over time. I don't really care for carburetors, especially on certain makes and models especially 70's Fords, as the fuel filter hose that connects directly to the carb, can leak on a hot manifold and cause a fire. Too many vac lines to deal with which could have small splits or cracks which will cause a leak that can be hard to diagnose for someone that isn't too well informed on how to repair stuff like that.
I like knowing that my 94 Cadillac Fleetwood will start up everyday, idle perfectly smooth, and won't stall or die out because of a vac leak here, bad distributor, cap n rotor, having to time the engine, adjust the carb, or a bad hose there, or a badly worn carb that needs a rebuild. The reliability of a fuel injected engine is so much better and less worrisome than a carb based engine in V8 form. Plus the maintenance factor on a modern car is much less. Mostly brakes, and what else?? Maybe a serpentine and timing belt? There's not much to deal with nowadays.
Overall to me, all the old school classic's I have owned from the 70's down to the 60's just felt like real cars hands down. Heavy, solid, and was all steel and real chrome. The styling was obviously way better, including the comfort factor, nothing can compare to the seats of luxury cars from the 70's, they were absolutely awesome, and ultra comfortable, no new modern car can compare IMO.
So yeah I believe in many respects, older cars did things much better than modern cars that will never be duplicated again, but new cars are good for getting places everyday without the worry of something majorly breaking down left and right.
The oldies are best to be seen in, and in some cases, cost less to run over time depending on the year/make and model of the vehicle.
Gypsy- Some very good points. It is clear you like big old cars. Me too. I have a 95 Roadmaster. It was basically old when it was new. No different than the big sedans of the 60s and 70s except it has airbags and heated seats. 5.7 V-8, Rear wheel drive. It is so comfortable. Seats are great. I also find many cars new seats rock hard. My wife has a Toyota Avalon and the seats in it are good, but I don't find other seats that good. We had to dump our 09 Accord because the seats were terrible.
I still have a 15 year old Toyota Avensis which I bought new. It has done 145,000 miles. It is still on the original back brake shoes, exhaust, radiator, radiator hoses and all hoses, alternator, PAS pump, etc. The only parts fitted in that time are: two new batteries and one set of timing belts (normal service items) with all other belts changed at the same time just to be sure. All other items were normal service items like tyres, filters, bulbs, etc.
It could possibly be said that new cars have a safety advantage as well, but safety was one of the first things that car manufacturers worked on when looking to improve their cars. That being said, if there is a safety advantage in new cars, it is only under certain circumstances. I T-boned a 2004 Pontiac Grand Am with my '72 Caddy at 30-something miles per hour, which is essentially like hitting a stopped car, and not only was the car still running and drivable afterward, but the extent of my injury was a sore neck which went away in two days. (In the Grand Am, one passenger had a broken shoulder, one was airlifted to the hospital with a brain injury, and the other, frustratingly enough the drunk driver herself, walked away with minimal injury.) For all of the talk about airbags and crumple zones and all of this stuff, there is still no substitute for physics. If modern cars are designed to ABSORB impact and older-model cars are designed to REPEL impact, then an old car keeps going as it plows into a newer car as the new car absorbs the impact... and either way, the old car doesn't decelerate as immediately as you would think for it not having all of that fancy crash-absorbing "stuff".
Might have been the impact location of the crash. The body of cars not absorbing the impact means the force of the impact goes into the passengers.
I like knowing that my 94 Cadillac Fleetwood will start up everyday, idle perfectly smooth, and won't stall or die out because of a vac leak here, bad distributor, cap n rotor, having to time the engine, adjust the carb, or a bad hose there, or a badly worn carb that needs a rebuild. The reliability of a fuel injected engine is so much better and less worrisome than a carb based engine in V8 form.
That's something people take for granted nowadays. Modern cars start up with the flick of a key in all kinds of weather, hot or cold, with the engine warmed up or dead cold. That wasn't always the case prior to about the 1980s when fuel injection became prevalent. Most older cars I recall driving were very particular about how they were started - pump the pedal, give it gas or not, hope for the best - and those procedures typically varied depending on if the car was already warmed up or not or what the weather was like at the time. And once they were started they often idled high or the idle speed hunted up and down (or the car stalled) until it was warmed up. Those days are ancient history now!
I agree with most of what you said, but you left out some of the most important advantages of new cars:
1 - Safety Equipment - New features such as: ABS, Traction Control, Stability Control, etc, Improved equipment: better tires, better brakes, better handling. Mandated safety design: - pedestrian safety bumpers/hoods (detracting from the style you mention), 3rd brake lights, etc. An argument can be made that a good driver doesn't need most of these features, but not everyone is a good driver and all of these items can help in an unexpected situation.
2 - Performance. Cars today perform so much better. From acceleration, to top speed, to braking, to handling, there is hardly any car from 35-40 years ago that can keep up with even the econo-boxes of today.
3 - Reliability. Getting 100,000 miles on a car from the 60's and 70's was doable, but a big achievement, usually requiring some of the (cheaper) repairs mentioned to get that far. Today, 175,000 or 200,000 miles is more likely to be "the norm", with some 100k powertrain warranties. You are also much less likely to be stranded on the side of the road than previously.
Finally, as to the seats you mentioned, most people fine the soft "pillow top" seats more comfortable for the initial feeling, but longer seat-time generally requires firmer seats for most body types. People spend much more time in cars today on average than they used to, so firmer seats are generally better for the majority of the population.
What I really miss about the old cars was that they changed every year. Even if it was just tail lights or something, you could usually visually tell the difference between a 1974 and 1975 car. Now, due to manufacturing process, and required crash testing and such, there are less visual changes between model years.
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.
