We might not realize it, but we are spoilt. For all the bemoaning about the loss of “character”, modern cars are vastly safer, more powerful, more fuel-efficient and produce fewer emissions than cars of the past. Spotting these similarly-hued Camrys in Spring Hill in Brisbane made me stop and think how far cars have come.
One is a 2016 Camry, the other is of a year I can’t exactly pin down. Let’s say it’s a 1989. The older Camry is an SE – then the Aussie base model – but considering the majority of Curbsiders are from the US, let’s talk American prices and specifications.
In 1989, the cheapest Camry in the US had no trim level name. It was priced at $11,488 or $12,158 with an automatic transmission. Adjusted for inflation, that’s approximately $22,000 or just under $23,500 for the automatic. That year was the first year the Camry broke into the sales Top 10, coming in at number 9. The year’s best-selling passenger car, however, was the Camry’s arch-rival the Honda Accord.
The base 1989 model came standard with power steering, remote fuel door release, reclining front bucket seats, tilt steering column, 13-inch wheels and a rear demister. There were no other power convenience features of note, nor were there airbags, cruise control or anti-lock brakes at the base level.
Power came from a 2.0 four-cylinder engine with port fuel-injection, with 115 hp at 5200 rpm and 124 ft-lbs of torque at 4400 rpm. EPA estimated gas mileage was 26/32 mpg with the standard 5-speed manual or 24/30 mpg with the optional four-speed overdrive automatic.
The V20-series Camry was a smaller car than today’s XV50, measuring 182.1 inches in length, 67.4 inches in width and 54.1 inches in height, with a wheelbase of 102.4 inches. Curb weight was 2690 lbs.
Today’s XV50 is 190.9 inches long, 71.7 inches wide, 57.9 inches tall and rides a wheelbase of 109.3 inches. Curb weight is 3240 lbs. Interestingly, even today’s Corolla has a longer wheelbase than the V20 Camry and an almost identical length, as well as being a couple of inches wider.
The new Camry, clearly, is a much bigger car. But is it better value, relatively speaking? Well, base MSRP is $25,560, but that’s before incentives. Toyota dealers are much more willing to make a deal now than they were in the 1980s. While I find the 2015 restyle a tad overstyled compared to the rather handsomely angular 2012 model, many non-enthusiasts I know have quite favorable opinions on the 2015’s looks.
The manual transmission is long gone from the Camry lineup, so the base LE comes with a six-speed automatic. The loss of any stickshift is rather poignant but the Camry has never been about driving thrills so the automatic suits it just fine.
Standard equipment includes an eight-way power driver’s seat, keyless entry, power windows, cruise control, back-up camera, heated mirrors, automatic headlights, 16-inch wheels and a 6-speaker AM/FM sound system with auxiliary audio input and a 6.1-inch touchscreen interface. More importantly, there are front and rear side airbags, front knee airbags, full-length side curtain airbags, stability and traction control and anti-lock brakes. The Camry is at the top of its class when it comes to crash safety.
There’s more weight to lug around, a side effect of stricter safety standards, but there’s more power and torque, too: 178 hp at 6000 rpm and 170 ft-lbs at 4100 rpm with a 0-60 time of around 8.3 seconds. EPA-estimated gas mileage is 25/35 mpg, superior to the 1989 automatic’s figures.
I understand the appeal of older vehicles. It would be rather baffling if I didn’t, considering the website I write for. But the vast majority of car owners are not as seduced by the sound of a V8 engine, don’t care as much about ease of maintenance, and have no desire for loose-pillow velour seats or pistol-grip shifters. The vast majority of car owners do not care about intangibles like “soul”. If you want to measure how far cars have come, you need to take one of the most popular and thoroughly unexciting cars and compare it to its equivalent from many years ago. You need to compare its features and its performance and how it functions for the average car owner. The 2016 Camry represents an all-round improvement in almost every metric for virtually the same price. That’s progress.
Related Reading:
CC Capsule: 1988 Toyota Camry DX
Curbside Classic: 1988 Toyota Camry
Comment Follow-Up: Which Is Faster, A Lamborghini Countach LP400S or a Toyota Camry V6?
I do feel bad about the decline and loss of the domestic auto industry down there in OZ. Since the Japanese use right hand drive cars in their home market they can flood the islands with their new and hand me downs at minimal cost.
Don’t those vehicles imported from Japan have to be modified to meet Australian Design Rules and state regulations at time of their manufacturing? I understand that obtaining ADR compliance plate is sort of deterrent for the Japanese grey imports.
I know. It’s the same thing here in the USA. I’m not impressed with what’s being offered today. They’re not only hideous to look at, but they’re also inferior quality compared to what was offered back in the 80s. My dad had a 1989 Toyota Camry sedan, and I loved driving it. I miss driving it.
In what ways are they “inferior quality”?
Bashing modern-day Japanese cars is his only schtick here. Best ignored.
Terming his statement as “bashing” isn’t quite fair IMHO. Although a new Camry is an unquestionably “better” car dynamically than a 1989 model, I would posit the older car does hold the edge in terms of overall fit and finish and interior materials (and yes, I’ve driven examples of both.)
Back in 1989, Toyota wasn’t content to rest on its laurels and reputation in the way the 2016 company does (remember, a 2016 Camry is largely the same vehicle first introduced in 2002.) Part of that was simple economics, as today’s development dollars tend to flow towards fancy electronics and gas-saving tech, rather than dashboard coverings and panel alignment. Another part was simply because Toyota in 1989 was still hungry to gain a foothold in the U.S. and other world markets. Today’s company is fat, dumb and happy by comparison.
Given my druthers, I’d take the ’89. At least I can
SEE out of it.
Agreed! One area where safety has not improved is the ability to see out of the vehicle. There would be fewer blind spots on the ’89. Such primary safety has been sacrificed for increases in secondary safety – the most survivable accidents are the ones you don’t have.
Yeah, somebody mentioned on here a few weeks ago that fatalities are going up again, so we may have reached the tipping point where primary safety has declined so much that the vastly improved secondary safety can’t make up for it. Or it could just be due to the rise of texting, vastly increased performance, and lack of traffic enforcement.
You can see out of VW Golfs, Yaris’s, and a number of other cars just fine.
I’d say it might be a combination of all of those factors, and you can’t really solve one without some fringe vocalists crying foul. At this point, with so many factors, it’s starting to resemble an infinite spiral, no good place to start, no definitive end in sight, and every path seems to lead nowhere.
I think it will end with self-driving cars. I have mixed feelings about that. I love driving, but have come to loathe commuting.
The gas mileage figures amaze me. To think how far the Camry has come over the years, for the same price point given inflation – how much better the 2016 car is than the 1989…..
The 89 doesn’t have a FAKE 6th window. Yay progress…
The loss of character in automobiles is parallel to the loss of character in people. The problem us knuckle dragging pistol gripping enthusiasts have with the Camry isn’t the Camry, it’s that everything has gradually become a mere variation of it, pushing aside formerly common automotive traits (manual transmissions, RWD, V8s, convertibles, 2 doors) to the fringe end of the market where they’re essentially all costly to own and insure in an act of self fulfilling prophesy. Yes the Camry is a statistically better car now than it was in 1989, but literally every 2016 car is as well. The difference was the market was much more diverse in 1989, even in the very segment the Camry occupied, providing choice for not necessarily like minded people, or the majority rule, homogenization has put an end to that, and we all have a little less individuality to show for it. Yay progress…
Agreed Matt. I still drive a 1999 Accord and love it for what it is – reliable, comfortable, economical transportation. Is a 2016 Accord a better car? I’m sure in a lot of ways it is – safety being the primary one – but I still love my ’99. My visibility is far better, it gets 26 mpg all the time, I don’t have huge taxes or car payments to worry about and it is the perfect sized car, not too big or small. And no crazy technology to worry about breaking.
Everyone today has to join the bandwagon to “fit in”. And Americans keep striving for bigger things – bigger cars, houses, salaries…..
Sometimes newer and bigger isn’t always better. But we have been brainwashed to think that is true.
“the market was much more diverse in 1989” – this is highly debatable. I would argue that we have more diversity than ever before.
FWD, automatic, I4 or V6 or hybrid, 4 doors or 5 doors – choose your height and your badge. That’s not very diverse.
You conveniently left out AWD, RWD, 4WD, manual, I3, flat-four, I6, V8, two doors, and choice of trunk or hatch, as well as unibody or BOF construction.
I left out AWD. everything else is either trucks, or on the aforementioned fringes of the market. All of that (minus the I3) was in equal or greater abundance in 1989
4 doors or 5 doors = choice of trunk or hatch
We have more vehicle segments today than ever before. However, the choices within those segments are almost all interchangeable.
All the “diversity” you like to think about WERE the fringes of the market. Citroen, Renault, Saab, Alfa Romeo, etc.
99% of the market were Chevrolet, Ford, Plymouth, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan/Datsun, Honda (add/subtract nameplates as necessary depending on decade). We tend to romanticize the failed brands, conveniently forgetting that a DeSoto was nothing more than a tarted up Dodge or simultaneously a stripped down Chrysler – but because it’s gone we tend to be fascinated by the styling and miss the car.
The change in the market has been that the 99%ers cars have become more ubiquitous and expanded their reach to fit in to the market portion that you once had to buy a lesser known brand (say Subaru replacing Saab and to a certain extent Volvo – and becoming less quirky while doing so). As the cost of developing a car goes up, the ability for small-market, quirky marques to thrive lessens.
And the proliferation of high end technology in all makes is rapidly turning the automobile market into two choices: Transportation nameplates, and status nameplates. Period.
Hell, I miss the British auto market pre-British Leyland, with all those odd little nameplates competing with each other. For that matter, I miss the US market back in the 1920’s when there were something like 50-70 brands competing. Economics and reality took care of all of that rather efficiently.
I agree with that Syke but that really wasn’t what I had in mind, I’m not even that big of a fan of the Citroens, Renaults, Saabs and Alfas lol.
I more bemoan the lack of options and bodystyles for mainstream cars. The Impala of yore is often referenced as the Camry of it’s day, but the unspoken difference is that someone who was/is into cars bought them up along with the majority who weren’t. There’s no equipping a Camry like an Impala 409 4-speed 2 door convertible/hardtop, or just one of those options individually. You can get a 268 horsepower V6 Camry with a bold grille, or a I4 Camry with a less bold grille today. The V6 isn’t bad but it isn’t exactly song worthy.
The V6 Camry has great performance by any measure…but I know what you are saying, it lacks any character to make it interesting. No kids are hanging a poster of it on their wall.
It sort of depends on your perspective. If you’re looking for a family sedan, as a great many buyers are, the choices now are vastly better than in the late ’80s (unless you just can’t stand current styling trends, which is fair enough). Likewise if you want something with 4WD or AWD that can also get out of its own way and doesn’t feel like riding in an empty drop tank. If you want a sporty coupe and can’t afford one of the pricey Germans, then your choices are notably fewer.
I thought the black plastic on the C-pillar was supposed to be a callback to the ’89 Cutlass Ciera and Century, rather than a “fake sixth window.”
Why are we comparing a compact to a midsize car? We might as well compare a Cavalier and a Malibu.
Same name. Same position in the Toyota lineup and, broadly speaking, the car market itself. Same price, accounting for inflation.
The new cars are better by almost every measure.
I’d take the 1989.
Nice juxtaposition. The Camry has indeed come a long way. My father-in-law has been a Camry man for quite a while now, and his first was a 1988. Coming out of a 1984 Dodge Aries wagon, he thought he’d died and gone to heaven. Toyota being Toyota, they kept refining and improving the car. He got a ’92 Camry next, which was a particularly nice one–probably his favorite–the Lexus-shared base made for the peak Camry experience. He then got a ’97 (definitely a cost-down versus the prior generation, but still good), followed by an ’02 and lastly an ’08, which he still has. The later ones are more boring “non-cars” but he is simply looking for reliable, comfortable transportation. He was interested in the Fusion–I thought the Camry spell might have been broken, but he was turned off by Sync/My Ford Touch. However, there wasn’t enough magic in the current Camry to get him to a Toyota showroom. He seems pretty content keeping the one he’s got. No need for Toyota to worry though, as loyalty for the brand runs strong now in their house–his wife just got her third Highlander last year (she’s had a one from each generation!).
Downside of all these airbags is once deployed, you pretty much have lost all control of the car and vision as well. I realize most accidents are a one hit deal, but there are times where having your arms blown away from the steering wheel and bags blocking the windows where a second formerly avoidable and perhaps deadly collision with now useless airbags can occur.
And for the person who does most of their own repair, the electronics often now need equipment only available to the dealership to repair and program.
There is no doubt cars are safer and cleaner then ever, but there are tradeoffs.
It does seem the low hanging fruit has been picked, and it’s to the point that the added complications that will occur as cars age they will end up junked due to being too costly to repair once the complex systems age and begin to fail. And as others have stated, the blind spots and cameras and beepers to overcome them seems to be creating problems and over complicated solutions at the same time.
Agreed, and 27 years later, 2016 of anything will not be around because they were too expensive to fix (total loss). The ’89 Camry on the other hand might still be around in another 27 years!
I don’t even think complex systems failing will necessarily do them in. For the most part electronic automotive hardware is fairly impervious to the ravages of time, sure you may hear of shops replacing computers and the like, but 99% of the time that’s not actually the cause of whatever problem was occurring. I think the bigger problem is software updates(which any electronic user will attest to, is not always an improvement) and moreover functional obsolescence. Interfaces that won’t necessarily support whatever latest device you use, and just a general dated interface itself.
The thing with cars before “infotainment” was they were primarily hardware driven, music was stored in Cassettes and CDs and 12v came from the cig lighter socket. Any feature could always be added via adapters, or even DIN sized aftermarket recievers could easily be swapped in, giving tons of features the car didn’t come with. IOW cars generally never become, or have a feature that becomes, functionally obsolete, in stark contrast though, that’s what tech giants know how to do best – Weekly software updates or your device is essentially bricked(ie very limited in capabilities if you don’t) and annual generation changes make the annual styling changes American automakers often get criticized for seem ridiculously tame by comparison – Automakers now strive to seamlessly accommodate the Apple/Microsoft/Googles, who then in turn strive to turn the world on it’s head(as their hubris dictates), rendering the prior tech in the cars suddenly obsolete or diminished.
” Any feature could always be added via adapters, or even DIN sized aftermarket recievers could easily be swapped in”
Yeah, that’s a big gripe I have. For a few hundred dollars I updated my pickup with a modern Bluetooth touchscreen reciever and backup camera. I don’t think that’s possible with most new vehicles, aside from sticking something on top of the dash.
I want none of it. Make mine like a modern Model T; no computer or electronic anything except fuel injection.
+1. I find modern cars just too confusing to drive, with so many electronic nannies intervening and bleating at me for no apparent reason.
Put me in the group that would take the 89 Camry. I don’t care about all the power and electronic fluff. No surprise as one could have seen that direction in my back in the 70’s. Meaning I like mechanical things to be simple for obvious reasons. I like to work on such things and having it denied to me takes the enjoyment out of it.
Mind you I have driven new cars and the mileage, power and handling are great. Then I look at the electronics and wondered how long would that last before bugs creep in? How much to repair that stuff? How long those electronic parts are available? I keep cars 15-20 years so it means something to me. When the engines go in my two 91 Mazda 626 cars I will just pull the engines and rebuild for sure nowadays.
Just rode in a new 2016 Civic. Big car compared to me 1980 Civic wagon no less. Gets fantastic mpg. Visibility out the back is bad. I saw that electronic center console that controls everything. The owner actually paid for extra warranty coverage just for that console as she will keep the car through 250,000 miles. When that touch screen console goes… oh boy.
That’s also because the 1980 Civic was a subcompact, and the current Civic is a compact.
Yes, the 2016 offers more comfort, power, mpg and hardware/software bells & whistles (are they really essential?) than the 1989 version, but is it really a better car in terms of build, durability, sustainability and lifecycle cost? Don’t think so. More expensive to repair and maintain. With increased computer software driven components, independent shops can’t fix them forcing you to go to dealer.
Talked with a independent body shop repairman and his assessment is cars nowadays are assembled very cheaply, with “Leggo snap together” fasteners and body panels difficult to replace due to airbag sensors and other electronic crap. Cars getting to point where you can’t repair them and/or prohibitively expensive to repair. Cars are essentually throw away now, which begs question, why buy?
One more comment: up until 2006 Toyota Camry had full-size spare tire. 2007 forward has temporary donut spare. Does the 2016 even have a spare tire?
BTW, I used to own a 1997 Camry. My more enlightened car friends tell me 1996 was the last good Camry. After 1996 decontent quality was obvious. I think they were right. But I liked the 1997 styling anyway.
I hear this all the time regarding today’s cars and CUV’s. They are so cheaply constructed as you say that they are essentially throw away when the software is outdated, the non rebuild-able engine gives out or the electronics fail that nobody can properly diagnose.
They have also de-contented today’s vehicles to the point that I would be scared to own one. Many newly introduced models do not even have door keys and the driver’s door is fully dependent on power to open with your remote. If your remote battery fails or the car battery goes south your stuck.
Take the Tesla sedan as tested by CR. It’s door handles are touch sensitive and use power to open and close. Naturally that system failed in one of there tests leaving them stranded on the side of the road unable to enter the vehicle. That alone would be a no-sale for me. You will forever be indebted to Tesla whenever these complex systems go south and just wait until the warranty runs out!
Yoman:
I agree.
Keyholes on both driver and passenger doors, as
well as trunklid, and a sparetire, donut or full size,
should be required by law. These are just common
sense items that have been on cars for decades,
and should be brought back.
Are the door locks really gone though? I know on several cars you pry off a cover to get to them. The new Impala is one example.
The Tesla is ridiculous. It’s worse than Apple, you are completely dependent on them. If you try updating the software yourself the car will call home and they will disable the car. I will never, ever buy a Tesla unless they change their business practices.
I have seen those pry-off covers, but my ’05 Mazda 3 just had a completely smooth handle on the passenger side with no provision for a key, unlike the driver’s side. The hatch had no key slot, but the second-gen had a key slot on the hatch – in response to complaints, maybe?
I lived through ’89. Right now I am driving a ’91 Cadillac Brougham, every day, for hundreds of miles a day until I get my paws on a new Pacifica.
In ’89, the average car on the road was about 9 years old. Cars were just beginning to break the 100K mile barrier but they were still considered fairly used up at 100K miles, and often were. My last 2006 Caravan made it to 232K miles and still drove like a new car before it was smashed flat.
In terms of diversity, the only car types I can think of that are missing are: A) the four seat convertible like the Chrysler LeBaron (the Mustang does not have a useful backseat), the cheap Chevy Cavalier/Nissan 240 SX convertibles; B) the sporty coupe like the DiamondStar cars, the Cavalier/Sunfire, Geo Storm, Ford Probe, Acura Integra, etc; C) the reasonably sized pickup truck for people who do not have compensation issues and D) the station wagon which could be argued has morphed into CUV/SUV form.
In ’89 Acura offered the Integra and Legend, and now they have a BQXZ and a TGHR or something that replaces them; so that’s a loss.
AMC was trying to sell the Cherokee, which hung around forever, and the Grand Wagoneer and the Premier and the Medallion,
BMW gave us BMWs which are fancier than they used to be and probably more reliable;
Chevy had the Cavalier, and celebrity, and Corsica and Beretta and Caprice and Camaro and Corvette and some of those little Sprints and Spectrums and such. The current range of products is much better, except for possibly the Caprice, but Chrysler makes a much better Caprice in the form of the Charger/300.
You could go and compare model by model and line by line but cars are much better today, and we have more or the same diversity in body styles. In another twenty or thirty years, as today’s cars become rarer, we’ll be nostalgic for them as well.
I do agree with the electronic carping. Electronic things do go out after a while and if you have something which is very model specific, the parts aren’t made or available for replacement any more. Or with certain emissions components, the mechanic cannot properly diagnose it and a perfectly good running car gets junked because you cannot trace the causes of the idiot light. But on the other hand, remember when it was common to rebuild an engine/transmission? Or for you Yankee road salters, when a car ran fine but ended up being junked due to rust? We are going to be junking cars forever, but the causes will be different.
My 2013 Impala LT is as complex as I would want to go as far as today’s cars are concerned. It is an older designed car that was introduced in 2006 and that was based on a design from 00. Simple knobs and controls that do not require you to take your eyes from the road while driving. Easy to fix most anything on these cars if a problem does occur and cheap parts.
I can see out of it pretty well, there are no backup camera’s needed, no touch screens to fingerprint up and have to worry about being outdated in a couple of years, a simple CD player and bluetooth system that always works. It is very comfortable, has plenty of room up front with no massive chunky center consoles, has been super reliable like my other 2 Impalas and is a pleasure to own and operate.
Meanwhile colleagues with new Fusions, Camry’s, 200’s and Altima’s have been bitching non stop to me about harsh shifting transmissions that hesitate and clunk, poor rear visibility, backup camera’s that incorrectly gauge distances, touch screens that lag or are buggy, noisy engines that are always on the boil due to CVT’s and glitch ridden unreliable bluetooth systems. I’m not making this stuff up. These are all common complaints with these and many other cars today. Out of these 4 the Camry is probably the simplest and least affected by these complaints since it is catered to older folks but still a couple of recent rentals had trouble with blue tooth connectivity and some complaints regarding the backup camera.
My best friend of 45, who is very computer/technology literate, just rented a new Mercedes GLC 300 and didn’t care for it very much despite the fact it was all new and cost close to 50 large. He said the cup holders were terrible, the radio/climate controls were the most miserable stupidly designed he has ever encountered, the 4 cylinder turbo was not very quick or frugal and required premium fuel to make only 241 HP, the headlights were poor on low beam and he kept having to take his eyes off the road to operate all the clunky interfaces just to perform a simple task in other vehicles.
Really? All you people worried about the reliability of modern electronics? I suppose you refuse to fly in a modern aircraft?
Come on. Modern automobiles are better than their predecessors by any measure. I went through the gestation of automobile electronics, and I don’t yearn for the days of feedback carburators, early EFI and self-actuating shoulder belts. But the technology has matured. Our two cars from the late 2000’s have had had no electrical/electronic failures. None. Come to think of it, I can’t remember when I had my last flat tire. Nowadays it is corrosion that takes cars off the road, and even that is getting much better.
I am reminded of the old joke that was going around some years ago: How many GM engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? Six….one to change the bulb, five to talk about how great the old one was.
+1 exactly what I was thinking reading these comments
I was reading an old Popular Mechanics article from c.1985 the other day and it was about the switch over from sealed beams to flush headlights with separate bulbs. They moaned about the higher cost of replacement and the fact that the lens wasn’t standardized between models anymore. 30 years later, those “darn newfangled headlights” are the norm, people stopped moaning about that decades ago – although I’m sure there’s a couple Luddites on the Internet who still do – because it’s just normal and accepted now, while sealed beams are all but forgotten and are frankly inferior hardware in most cases. Power windows are another good example, I still see people moan about how “complex” they are, but the window motors on most modern cars are so robust now they don’t fail in 3 years like they did in the 1970s when that argument was actually valid. (not to mention manual window mechanisms can fail too, and are equally annoying to fix). There are exceptions, but you could find a random ’98 Camry/Altima/whatever with 250k and there’s a decent chance all the original window motors still work.
Point is there will always be new technology and there will always be grumpy change-averse people to moan about it. The argument about planned obsolescence is valid in terms of the interfaces seeming “dated” quickly, but since when is that a new phenomenon with any consumer product?
Well call me a Luddite then, early aero halogen headlights with fluted lenses were inferior, the light pattern was often limited due to purely aesthetic and efficiency driven design sensibilities (90s Tbirds and Mark VIIIs come to mind) and it takes only a few years of outdoor parking before they haze over and yellow to the point of dangerously low output. It took a solid decade or two before light output surpassed that of standard sealed beams and the key for that was eliminating halogen bulbs, course the latter problem still exists though.
I pretty much agree otherwise though, however I genuinely believe we’ll be looking back at today’s infotainment systems and interfaces the same way we look at autobelts today. It’ll probably work in the cars still rolling, but it’ll be damn cheesy.
The ’89 Camry actually has the best of both worlds in the headlight department (I know, I have a ’91 Camry- same body style). The headlight housings are made of beautiful glass but only the bulb is replaced from behind with common 9004 halogen capsules.
Fail. Sealed beams are superior in several metrics: the whole darn thing costs less than a little bitty bulb (go figure) and far, far less than a composite headlight assembly, and they’ll never haze/craze/yellow/pit and so performance doesn’t noticeably degrade over time either. Composite lights were *supposed to be* for low, aerodynamic noses but just about everything these days has a face like a bus anyway, such that if we still had sealed beams they could easily be fitted. I think the real reason for the composites was just another way to foist planned obsolescence and increased cost onto a public that actually likes that. :/
Yes, composite lights can be terrible and have led to integrated turn signals that are impossible to see in direct sunlight.
So I’m not the only one to find them invisible?
Another issue is when the front of the body curves so much that the turn signals are effectively ‘around the corner’ and can’t be seen.
Most posters seem to have forgotten what happens to individual parts as they age, an old car will be cheaper to service, but you’ll be servicing it much more often than the newer one!
Hate to break it to you but the same parts wear out on new cars too, own any car 20+ years old and expect to need replacements, doesn’t matter if it’s from 1959, 1989, or 2019, if it has rubber bushings and bearings it’s going to need replacement at some point, and if one is going to own a car that long simpler with less parts is better, for not just ease but also part availability. You guys may love to wax poetic about today’s golden age but put up or shut up and keep your 2016 car for 20 years and report back.
I do think the golden age, as far as durability goes, was probably the early 90’s Japanese cars. Right mix of simplicity and quality.
A brand new car isnt 20+years old when I get the keys to it, and if anything does happen I can plug a computer in and I’ll know instantly.
“…but also part availability”
Classic cars aside, as models age parts become more scarce.
I do agree with Phil that the early 90’s was a bit of a “Golden Age”, but those cars are quite old by now.
A computer doesn’t detect a worn out ball joint, a collapsed bushing or mount, a spun bearing or why exactly the car has a pull or vibration in the steering. A computer can detect powertrain related faults via the DLC, but that isn’t anything new, OBD II ushered that in and that was exactly 20 years ago, soon afterwards ABS/stability control, instrumentation and the various other electronic features were tied into it as well, which no doubt helps immensely when chasing circuit related gremlins or trying to narrow down an individual sensor. But don’t overlook the fact that there remains a myriad of purely mechanical components, stuff where technology has only had an effect on with the design itself, not the physical application. Because of the added complexity of some of these components(for better handling, efficiency, performance, safety), that means there may be more wear points, more frequent need for replacement, less ability to improvise, less access for repair and greater reliance on the (much costlier)OEM for replacement, due to tighter tolerances, specific materials and durometers to function properly, and that’s not something you can count on the aftermarket to hold the standard of, or for OEMs to keep on hand for 20 years, let alone 10.
My argument is simply to say that “new cars are better in EVERY measure” is as incorrect as saying “old cars are better in EVERY measure”. You take the good with the bad, and that applies whether you like driving old stuff or only buy new.
“A computer doesn’t detect a worn out ball joint, a collapsed bushing or mount, a spun bearing or why exactly the car has a pull or vibration in the steering”
No but a brand new car more than likely wont have these issues. An abused 20 year old beater will.
“My argument is simply to say that “new cars are better in EVERY measure” is as incorrect as saying “old cars are better in EVERY measure”.”
I agree with you on this, some of todays dashboards in particular are a bit messy. Then you have vehicles that are hard to get in and out of because styling.
” All you people worried about the reliability of modern electronics? I suppose you refuse to fly in a modern aircraft?”
I don’t refuse, but read the accident report about Air France flight 447. There are many other examples as well of “dumbing down” of pilot skills due to advanced tech that can and does fail.
And yet nobody’s eager to fly across the world in a Ford Trimotor. Hmm…it’s almost like society as a whole has agreed on acceptable tradeoffs of simplicity vs. effficiency.
We are not talking about driving a 1920’s car vs 2016.
Cars are not aircraft. Engineering, build quality, and testing are not remotely comparable. That said, it’s pretty rare I’m on a newer plane, most are 20-30 years old.
Isn’t that the truth. I’ve been traveling for work the past 3 weeks (a previously rare occurrence for me) on Delta, and 8 of my 10 flights have been on MD-88s. You can see the build plate as you get on the plane, and the newest I’ve seen was 1992; the oldest, 1988.
I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute flying on a US-built airliner of any age, operated by a major first world airline. I knew some of the people who designed and built those MD-88’s. They were built to last when properly inspected and maintained.
Aircraft, if properly maintained, can be flown for decades. Believe it or not, the B-52 heavy bomber, over 50 years old, is still in service!
What leads to retiring planes from (commercial) service is economics – a combination of fuel costs and maintenance costs. Or noise abatement issues.
747s have been taken out of commercial service by many of the major airliners in recent years because the 777 (and other aircraft) are more economical on a per passenger mile basis.
Gimme the newer Camry, it may cost more to replace parts, but I wont be replacing anything for another 15-20 years.
The old Camry will need constant rust work, bearings, bushings, exhaust, and sooner or later a new transmission. Yea the parts will be cheaper, but I’ll have to buy more if I want to keep it going!
+1
Having known a few owners of these, I know exactly none who’ve constantly done any of that to one of them, they’re quintessential beaters, all with 200k+ miles. I’m not saying the 2016 won’t do the same but don’t delude yourself into thinking it’ll fare much better, well other than the rust aspect anyway, but I don’t squarely credit the “March of technology” on that improvement.
“I know exactly none who’ve constantly done any of that to one of them”
That doesn’t mean that they’re not due for a few new parts, just that a little TLCs been skipped.
Besides, you can find late 2000’s Hyundais with over 200k on the clock, even modern bargain bin cars will reach decent numbers.
Family had an ’87 Camry and it was reliable, but salty roads were its worst enemy.
If I see them side by side, stopped at a traffic light, I’ll take the empty lane. The only way to view a Camry is in your mirrors.
I just don’t like the styling of the ’16; it just looks too contrived and busy. Mind you, I was no great fan of the ’89 either. Guess I’m just not a Toyota person.
Wow, the real tangible lust for Generation 1, 2, and 3 (1997-2001) Camry’s is their longevity, inexpensive repair costs, and general bulletproof-ness. Never mind no recalls and better built. Especially Gen3. How many of them are still on the road? Lots!
Let’s see how long modern cars will last… hint, they won’t. Never mind the new water-based paints that don’t last and parts that break down due to bean-counter inspired cost-cutting. Seriously.
The writer of this article obviously has money to burn out his tailpipe, not that that is a bad thing.