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.
This time period is considered the worst years for cars because of fuel & emissions regulations making cars much slower than the same models just a few years before the regulations. But were they also bad for other reasons? The plastics used on the dash were prone to discoloration and cracking from the heat and sun, the vinyl seats cracked easily, carpet material easily deteriorates, and then there's the poor engineering and build quality. While the Japanese cars of this era made big gains, they also suffered from their own problems. Were the cars of other eras as bad or worse than this era?
This time period is considered the worst years for cars because of fuel & emissions regulations
making cars much slower than the same models just a few years before the regulations.
But were they also bad for other reasons?
You need more?
Quote:
Were the cars of other eras as bad or worse than this era?
Earlier car designs (and builds) were simpler. I call that better.
Later car designs were more complicated. Auto mechanics call this better.
All I know is first car I bought was a 77 Monte Carlo, thing ran perfect until some chick hit it and pushed it into my fathers garage.. . Too many parts on vehicles now
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,553 posts, read 81,067,970 times
Reputation: 57723
I agree, those were the worst years. The smog equipment was primitive and reduced both horsepower and gas mileage, they were using far more plastic and that too was in an early form that didn't hold up over time. Styling also was bad, with a more boxy look. For me '72 was the last year for good looking cars, '69 for the best performance, on those vehicles with front disc brakes. Improvements started again in the early 1990s.
This time period is considered the worst years for cars because of fuel & emissions regulations making cars much slower than the same models just a few years before the regulations. But were they also bad for other reasons? The plastics used on the dash were prone to discoloration and cracking from the heat and sun, the vinyl seats cracked easily, carpet material easily deteriorates, and then there's the poor engineering and build quality. While the Japanese cars of this era made big gains, they also suffered from their own problems. Were the cars of other eras as bad or worse than this era?
Yes, quality overall was poor. Interioir trim, seats, headliners, carpets, if after 4 to 6 years all these were not deteriorated you were lucky. Door panels were made of cheap plastic and often cracked or broke. Window crank mechanism got loose or bound up or fell apart. Power windows failed.
I am certain that some cars were assembled with sheetmetal that had already started rusting. You would see 2 yr old cars with small rust holes and 4-5 year old cars and trucks with huge holes.
Mechanical parts were just as bad, it was common to have to replace parts like starters, alternators, radiators, U joints, hoses, head gaskets, muffler, exhaust, shocks, at 25-50K miles, today you expect two or three of these repairs at 100K or more. Back then getting to 100K was an acheivment and many cars didnt make it. None of my dads cars did and he was one to keep them until the proverbial wheels fell off.
There was also a time in the 80's when manufacturers had to change their paint formulas.. The paint during this time frame was very prone to cracking and peeling.
One thing, I will say I always liked the interior of the mid/early 80's Chrysler Fifth Avenue. Soft, plushy seats that were easy on the posterior on long drives.
My first car was a hand-me-down 1977 Toyota Celica that my parents gave me. The sheet metal was wafer thin and dented easily and as the OP said - the interior materials were so cheap that they had literally disintegrated by the time I got rid of it when it was nine years old and had 185,000 on it. The last few years it was parked outside and that's all it took to ruin the plastics. Its saving grace - a 20R engine and five speed manual that were very reliable. Fast forward to the 2002. Bought a new Mazda Protege and sold it to my sister in 2011. She still has it and after 13 years of always being parked in the sun the paint still looks good and the interior has no cracks in the plastic or rotting upholstery (just fading). Definitely better materials than the 70s.
It's really hard to say because it all depends on the brands.
For the majority of makes, I am sure this was the worst time for quality, but my 78 Lincoln Continental is actually built very well besides for a few "cheapiness" parts of the car.
The dash was awesome and well made in 77, but the 78-79 Model years the dash got extremely cheap feeling with bad fitment and cheap plastics.
But everything else about the car is great. The car is extremely isolated from the road, the body feels nice and tight still, the seats, the door panels, the switches, the headliner and even some of the harder and softer plastics are actually pretty solid and feel well made. The interior looks like new in my Linc.
Nothing in the interior of car has falling off or broke, so that's a positive.
The sheetmetal is still very thick and strong, I know the downsized GM cars of this time suffered from feeling "Hollow" and "Thin" while the big Fords were still pretty good during this time depending on the make and model you choose.
Definitely the later 70's wasn't a great era for cars, they're are few gems, but not much.
This era is certainly not a high point for the automotive industry. Looking back farther, there were engineering improvements and advancements over older eras. The industry is always marching forward in this respect. In fact, looking back at those cars, and their longevity and reliability compared to a modern car really illustrates how far automobile engineering has come. Cars are so much more complex now, and yet, are so much more powerful, efficient, and longer lasting.
Looking back from today, those vehicles appear to be terrible in comparison. However, when new at the time, the drops in power were probably the only overly notable "negative" as some of the other things mentioned were not exactly steps backwards from prior generations (for the most part).
Mechanical parts were just as bad, it was common to have to replace parts like starters, alternators, radiators, U joints, hoses, head gaskets, muffler, exhaust, shocks, at 25-50K miles, today you expect two or three of these repairs at 100K or more. Back then getting to 100K was an acheivment and many cars didnt make it. None of my dads cars did and he was one to keep them until the proverbial wheels fell off.
It looks like you are underestimating the longevity of cars of that era. Many of the components you listed lasted much longer than 50k miles. Especially starters, alternators, radiators, U joints, hoses, head gaskets, mufflers and exhaust. With proper care, many makes and models of '70s American cars could easily reach and exceed 100,000 miles with the original (non-rebuilt) engine and transmission/drivetrain.
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.
. Too many parts on vehicles now
