The Ranger needs a head gasket. The author needs a way to get to work and the parts store/machine shop while the truck is apart. What’s the best car $200 (1994) will buy? How about Jason’s car?
Affectionately known as “The Boat”, Jason’s car is a 1969 Ford Custom. It may possibly have been one step up, the Custom 500, but it’s doubtful, and the details are lost to time. Powered by a 302/C4, it’s otherwise pretty bare bones – AM radio, power steering, 4-wheel manual drum brakes, and a cloth seat.
This car was originally purchased by Jason’s Great Aunt Mina. Apparently the prototypical spinster, she bought the car new in 1969, and it passed to Jason sometime in the early 90s with only about 60,000 miles on the clock. Problem is, any 1969-model American car comes from the era when a car was pretty used-up by 60k, and The Boat certainly was. It doesn’t matter that it took 25 years to acquire that 60k, the car was beyond its useful life by the time I got it. Nobody had ever really driven it, but neither had anyone maintained it.
I mentioned earlier that The Boat had 4-wheel manual drum brakes. That was a bit of a lie. It was built with 4 manual drum brakes. By the time I got it, no more than two of those brakes functioned, dependent upon the time of day and phase of the moon. Likewise, all of the front end components, steering and suspension, were but a shadow of their former selves. Looking back, it scares the crap out of me that I ever drove it past the end of the block.
On top of all that, everything leaked. The engine leaked so much oil that I would do oil changes for my friends, and pour the waste oil into The Boat. It really didn’t matter at that point.
Oh, did I mention that the gas tank leaked as well? Big ol’ Fords had big ol’ gas tanks (25 gallons, if I remember correctly). One day I was feeling particularly flush and filled the tank, only to watch the top 10 gallons leak right back out on to the ground. I called Jason.
“Why didn’t you tell me the top half of the gas tank leaks??”
“It does? I had no idea! I could never afford to fill it!”
Well, I drove it until the Ranger was again roadworthy. I put an ad in the local paper, offering a low-miles 302/C4, sold in a worthless car. Sold it within a day for $175. Thus ends the tale of The Boat.
Loved reading this, awesome story. When I tell “kids’ these days about the durability of old school cars, they hardly believe me.
Durability, perhaps. Reliability is another thing entirely; cars don’t break down nearly as much (not to mention less flat tires), and don’t get me started on the difference in drivability.
I was thinking about this the other day, when Paul reran the piece on the mechanical fuel injection engine that was available in 1957, from Chevrolet. Today, I confidently step on the accelerator to pull out into traffic; back in the day, remember how carburetors would sometimes bog down off the line, causing hesitation?
rlplaut got it right in his post below: “If they’re in perfect shape, you’d be afraid to drive them much; if they’re not in perfect shape, you’d be afraid to drive them at all.”
Sometimes for fun, I scan web sites selling old cars and see beautiful photos of the cars of my youth, the cars I desired when I got my license but could never afford. Like a 1960 Olds 88 with only 88,000 miles.
Then I think pretty much what you wrote in your COAL, specifically “… Problem is, any 1969-model American car comes from the era when a car was pretty used-up by 60k.”
It is probably not the old cars that we want. More likely it is our youth and that endless feeling of enthusiasm and big dreams that we’d like to re-experience.
The cars? If they’re in perfect shape you’d be afraid to really drive them much.
If they’re not in perfect shape, well, you’d be afraid to drive them at all.
Sort of an old car catch 22.
Unless you are Jay Leno.
+ 1 . You have very succinctly summed up old car ownership to a T.
Your right, it’s not the old cars we want, it’s something we can’t buy anymore at any price.
The pull of nostalgia makes older cars attractive. Our memories that were made in similar cars. It was the family car we grew up with. Our first car no matter how beat up. The first car we bought new. Or it could be the car that we wanted then but couldn’t afford. For the car enthusiast it’s the sports or luxury car American or import, that was so desirable but not attainable. You can laugh, but for me, listening to 80’s Disco music (on occasion!) brings back memories of my Twenties, just out of college. The best time of my life. Still playing with cars though.
True. If we are smart enough we won’t buy an old car from our youth. If we do buy one it is about therapy.
You summed it up so perfectly that I quoted you in another post.
It took me a few old car ownership experiences to figure this out, but for my own personal needs I tend to do better when I buy the closest thing to a modern-day version of the vehicles I wanted in my youth (when such modern-day vehicles exist).
Some guys enjoy the constant fiddling with carburetors, ignition system, brakes and whatnot that comes with an older vehicle. To them I say, “Bless you,” because they’re keeping these old beasts on the road for all to enjoy. Unfortunately, until I retire I don’t have the patience to join their ranks.
Re-experiencing.. and one can track that back through history in what old vehicles are popular as classics. By the time people become empty nesters, and head towards retirement, whatever vehicle it was that typified their youth, will be the ‘classics’ of that era. Ford T, Ford A, Ford flatheads, tri-Chevys, muscle cars, and now we’re seeing the climb of 70’s personal lux. coupes & broughaminess (is that a word?). 20 years ago, someone asked me what would be the next trend in classic cars… I said 70’s personal lux coupes. They said I was insane… (well.. perhaps)
Yes, “broughaminess” is a word. It’s in the CC Wicki.
I’ve often spent far too many words saying exactly this. Bravo.
“Cars were pretty much used up by 60,000 miles”. Yeah, the rule of thumb I was raised with is that you wanted to sell your car before it had 50,000 miles on it because after 50K it was approaching beater status and the value would drop like a rock. This was not only a mechanical-wear rule though – 50K also generally worked out to 4 years or so, and at four years most cars were starting to show rust bubbles through the body.
I still remember the awe in my dad’s voice when talking about his early-adopter Honda Accord (well Ziebarted to be sure) when he said, “90,000 miles and all I’ve done is change the oil”. He exaggerated of course, I’m sure he’d done a timing belt and water pump in there somewhere, but the point was that (held together by Ziebart) the car looked pretty good and was still in great mechanical shape -something he’d never seen before- and Japanese quality was a revelation. He never bought another American car. For perspective there, though, the Accord followed a 74 Plymouth that never ran right thanks to the pollution controls, and a 76? Malibu which came from the factory with a misaligned rear axle. In any case, you can bet both those cars were gone before the 50K mile mark.
To be fair, a slant 6 in a Plymouth or a small block in a Malibu would have a longer average life than an early CVCC engine. Service by the book would also be less. Naturally, experiences may vary,
Your story is a little sad to me. By 1994 the ranks of the 69 Ford had thinned considerably. The catch up service to see that the car made an additional 25 years and 60k would not have been a huge investment, and yet the car just continues to be driven into the ground.
It reminds me a little of the Crabspirits stories at the other site.
I think this is an interesting discussion, how were old cars less durable than their modern equivalents? To my recollection, front end components wore faster in the 60’s. I bought a ’68 T-bird with 33 thousand documented miles, which needed 4 new ball joints and assorted rubber bushings. It did not help the old ones had no grease fittings.
My dads ’70 Cutlass had a worn front end by 50k miles, and that had grease fittings, although I never knew if anyone ever greased it. I think a well maintained front end today will last at least double or triple this figure.
Of course modern paint is astonishingly good. The old acrylic lacquers would fade and weather in 3 years. But my vintage 25 year old cars still look like new. And rust? Say no morr.
At least the old drivelines were excellent. I nevrr came across a vintage cast iron American driveline that actually ever wore out, timing chains and oil pumps excepted.
The old style suspensions on the other hand seem hard to replace in heavy duty police work. Bigger FWD platforms had a hard time breaking into that niche.
Fuel injection makes a huge difference in regards to engine life. Gasoline makes a poor lubricant, and it’s impossible for a carb to match fuel injection in getting and keeping the right fuel ratio. Carbs tend to be run a bit rich (to prevent detonation) and the result is gas thinning the oil and washing the cylinders down.
The tighter tolerances engines are built to today are also a panacea for engine life eliminating a lot of the thrashing and banging of vintage engines. 40 and 50 years ago most everything recommended thick 10W40 motor oil whereas now days it’s often 0W-something which would have looked like sewing machine oil to my parents generation. That said, frequently changed oil and a well maintained Motorcraft, Rochester or Carter carburetor on a V8 or straight 6 could last well into the hundreds of thousands of miles.
The 0w (or 5w or 10w or 15w) only really matters during cold startup, the second number is more indicitave of what the engine’s tolerances may be, but also the higher RPMs many engines pull now to achieve their impressive on paper horsepower stats(and/or fuel economy) may be a greater factor for the use of thinner oils than bearing tolerances, which may not be as different as you think from 25 years ago.
I consistently ran 20W50 in the ’79 Malibu because of the plethora of small oil leaks that car had. The thicker stuff didn’t leak back out quite as fast.
It probably would have been a better idea to actually fix the leaks, but hey, I was looking for the cheap way out (and our mechanic agreed with me).
The “sealed” ball joints and tie rods are largely the reason for suspension longevity, so it’s the opposite of being well maintained. Back when every car had greasable ones, those needed to be well maintained to last(and they can outlast sealed technically, but…). Second largest reasons I’d posit would be the switch to rack & pinion steering, which eliminated several wearable joints related to the old recirculating ball steering, and the proliferation of MacPherson struts, which eliminated upper ball joints. It’s a march of simplicity.
Paint, yes… Mostly. They’re all much more impervious to fade and wear but that’s heavily dependent on manufacturer formulas and techniques, a lot of those 90s- early 00s paints used on GMs and Fords were for all intents and purposes ‘modern’ but as easily observed the clearcoats, especially on darker colors can completely fail, and it’s something that tended to happen after the cars went out of warranty so it’s too early to judge more recent paint as far as long term (20-25 years) appearance is concerned. The good thing about the old lacquers for long term was IF it wasn’t down to the metal it could be buffed back to beauty, and with continues care thereafter(easier said than done, granted) kept that way, but with a modern car with clearcoat peeling off in patches you’re essentially SOL
Rust yes. That’s the only thing I’m envious about with modern cars vs old. Although, I will point out that something many manufacturers do now is essentially put plastic bumper cover like covers over places like rocker panels, which even in some more recent years were still trouble spots for rust, I’d be curious to see how cars with those look underneath in northern climates and see if they’re hiding it rather than solving it.
Drivelines, I think with modern cars the transmission seems like it’s always the “crosses fingers” component, most are good, but some are terrible(Honda Oddesy) and with the two handfuls of gears they get now a days I’m thinking there will be another notorious one or two come out of the woodwork.
Timing chains and oil pumps of old cars can’t be complained about when timing belts and water pumps are an accepted task for modern cars though. The carburator was THE Achilles heel to engine longevity in old cars more than anything else, pretty much every carried over engine from the 60s-70s turned into half million mile+ capable engines overnight with the switch to EFI
Roller cams and improved oil technology are kind of the icing on the cake, too.
So looks like a mark III Cortina with gargantuosis. To which you’re welcome to reply, that Cortina looks like a Ford Custom that’s shrunk in the wash.
It is a Ford. Maintenance will be non ex-instant to minimal.
Modern cars, if driven sensibly and maintained should last longer and be more reliable than the older 60’s products ….My 2005 Impala is nearing 168,000 miles and should be good for at least another 100,000…..Engine still runs quiet and smooth….I change oil every 2000-3,000 miles….4 wheel disc brakes are easier to maintain and replace than the old 4 wheel drum brakes with their collection of clips and springs…..Code readers can scan computer codes to narrow down check engine light diagnoses.
On the other hand, lift the hood on a 60’s car and truck and you will find an enginebay with an easily accessable engine without the miles of vacuum lines, emission control devices, etc…..If a car did not run right, you checked for fuel, spark, air, and compression…….Nowadays, all kinds of factors regulated by an onboard computer could also contribute to a poorly running engine.
Ford in ’69 was “The Going Thing.” Kind of the point/counterpoint to “Ford gives you better ideas”…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0is3Iob53ac
Guess Rowan & Martin were Ford guys.
I think these cars sold on loyalty and little else. “Grandpa had one back in 1930 and we’ve only ever owned FORDS!” Maybe it was the cool marketing. Because driveability was pretty much an afterthought. Along with durability.
OTOH, Chevrolet marketing on TV in the late 60s was about as awful as…well, Chevrolet marketing is today, lacking a coherent direction. Of course they had a superior line of cars AND 25% of the market. At least “Putting you first, keeps us first” came out for the ’69 model year, their first coherent branding campaign since 1963? ’64?
Of course the tables turned after the 1970s and over the 80s and 90s, the Ford Panthers (LTD, Crown Vic) came to deserve every accolade they earned.
As a teenager in the late 1970s, I don’t remember these faring worse, over the long haul, than their primary competition – the full-size Chevrolets and Plymouths, along with the bottom-rung full-size Pontiacs.
There were still 1969-70 Galaxies and LTDs in regular service in the late 1970s among friends and family members. Those cars weren’t babied. This was in south-central Pennsylvania, where the roads were (and still are) salted in winter, too.
You can’t beat the mpg, safety, and going years with no major problems that is present on many new cars.
On the other hand if there actually IS a problem, give me an old car any day…there’s only a few things it can be, usually.
In 1969 my Dad had a company car that was the exact twin of the white one on the brochure. White, same trim, same blue interior, same everything. It was an automatic and probably a 302. In those days the finance company he worked for at the time replaced company cars every 2 years, about 50,000 miles, because that’s all they were good for. I recall it breaking down or requiring service quite often, and Saturday morning visits to the Ford dealer’s service department were a common occurrence. He wasn’t sorry to see it go in ’71.
I doubt the equivalent Chevy or Plymouth would have been any better, that’s just how it was back then.
By contrast, just yesterday I “retired” my 2010 Sierra 1500 that I bought new. 296,000 km, and with the exception of a new torque converter, normal wear items and service every 10,000 km has run without fail every day. It still starts at the twist of a key, runs and drives almost like new, nothing leaks and everything works. On Monday it starts a new career on my brother’s renovation company and I’m sure he’ll get a couple more years out of it. They really don’t make ’em like they used to.
Seems like lack of maintenance over 25 years of time was the biggest problem of this car. The fact it still accomplished it’s purpose, getting you around until the truck was repaired speaks to the durability of the 302 C4. I don’t know if it had to deal with salted winter driving over the years, or if it was from a mild no salt state. If it had corrosion problems of course the suspension will be done after 25 years.
MY ’70 C10, when I sold it at around 170k miles had never had the suspension touched in the 36 years it had been on the road until I sold it in 2006. Engine had timing chain replaced around 100k miles, heads had burnt valves by 120k miles and had to be redone, but this was because of being designed for leaded gas. The manual steering was really loose by this time and it for sure needed front end work but this was after a lot of hard miles.
3 speed stick transmission was a weak point, by about 80k miles it was done, replaced by a rebuilt 4 speed floor conversion. This truck did more than a few 1000k mile trips loaded and towing a lot more weight than it was rated at, and new shocks and rear overloads was all the work it got. Of course, being a truck it would be designed to last longer, but the same engine and transmission was in the Chevy cars of the era.
A friends ’74 Pinto was at around the same mileage as my truck when he sold it, T belt and water pump was about the extent of repairs needed, and this car was far from being well maintained, in fact it was abused from time to time but held up well mechanically. Although the interior did pretty much turn to dust over the next 15 years while he had it.
Of course new cars are much longer lasting, but when problems develop they can be very expensive and difficult to repair.
Given the car had low miles for being 25 years old I’m quite a bit more hesitant to get on a perch and preach how far cars have come and how crappy old cars are because they were engineered with tape measures and pencils rather than computers. Obviously those of you doing so haven’t resurrected a car with low miles, rubber tends to dry rot and deteriorate on an accelerated timetable when they sit dormant, that means bushings/seals/gaskets/dust boots/isolators/mounts/weatherstripping/tires are all suspect on ALL cars, newer or old, that encoumpasses a quite a lot.
Hmmm, this “theory” that a car of the 60s was pretty used up by 60K miles is interesting and could explain my family’s experience with a 69 Ford LTD.
The LTD was the 2nd or 3rd large Ford my father bought that had been owned by the same family as a new car. While it was a decent looking car, teal with a black vinyl roof, it was EXTREMELY cold blooded. That car had the 390 and between the large engine and it’s reluctance to stay running after startup for longer than a few seconds, it had to have been the least economical car my folks would own.
In the mid 70s I was given a 69 or 70 Country Squire with a 429. Even though that car was only 5 or 6 years old, it looked and drove like a car more than 10-12 years old.
There are plenty of modern cars around with rotten suspension longevity. On my own car I have replaced strut bushings twice within 65,000 miles. 07-08 Calibers, Sebrings and Avengers were notorious for suspension problems. GM has had a problem with intermediate steering shafts for years.
But then I compare my dream car, a 1960 Comet, with my 11 year old ride…. the 05 would not have even be in the realm of possibility in 1960: polymer, over 1 hp per cubic inch, DOHC block and heads, disc brakes, airbags, 4 speed automatic, power steering and brakes, Mcpherson struts in front, sway bars, rack and pinion, fuel injection, drive by wire electronically boosted steering and fuel delivery.
On an 11 year old Saturn ION 1. In 1960 that would have been a ridiculous fantasy in a bottom of the barrel economy car.
But one does things for me the other can’t: act as a time capsule. Be able to drive down an isolated road and transport me back to the 60s and Route 66, like in my 63 Valiant.
And does it need to be stated: expect problems with anything old whether it be old cars, houses, old washing machines or lawn mowers?
My father had a 1970 Fairlane 500 wagon with a 302, manual steering, manual brakes, and a 3 speed manual that went well over 200,000 miles over 11 years, so I believe some cars from that era were as reliable as today’s cars.
The average age of a car on American roads in 1979 was 5.7 years, and that was up from a lower figure in 1969. The 2013 average-age-of-car-on-the-road figure is 11.4 years, that is just about double the 1979 figure. They don’t make ’em like they used to, it’s true; largely they make ’em considerably better. To a degree utterly unimaginable in the 1960s and ’70s (and ’80s), today’s cars go far and long between routine maintenance needs, and are indifferent and adaptable to whatever ambient conditions might present. Time was, “Will the car start?” and “What if the car breaks down?” were legitimate questions with negative answers often enough to warrant planning for—and to support the gas station service bays that are now almost extinct because they can’t pay their way any more.
Objectively, new cars really are better than old ones in absolutely every functional way. It doesn’t mean we have to give up liking old ones, we just have to admit that we don’t like them because they’re better (they’re not), we like them because we like them, and that’s fine as far as it goes.
I would love to use my old cars more often but that is difficult to do in the Bay Area given traffic conditions. Work days are out due to commute crowding. Weekends can be out as the traffic is almost as bad, almost, plus you have all the nuts doing 75mph zipping in and out. Zipping in and out isn’t good for an old car given it’s handling and breaking systems vs. new. My major concern with the cars is being able to stop when some idiot does something in front of you thinking you can stop on a dime.
As for reliability I can say I have never had a problem with any of them once I got them under my care. The Cougar, since 1968, has been trouble free. Same with the Mustang bought in 1984 and restored. The 73 Polara had issues with the Mopar electronic ignition which I eliminated with Pertronix. The 65 F100 is so basic how could it not be trouble free unless you neglect it. The 67 Park Lane has 153,000 untouched miles on it and is scheduled for it’s first front end rebuild in the next two months.
I wonder if the average age of cars has gone up because they last longer or just because the are so expensive people have to keep them longer? when I was a kid people dealing every 3-4 years was not uncommon. I have one friend who just dealt her 11 year old Hyundai Tucson on a new Jeep Cherokee simply because she got 0% financing for 7 years. she said she bought the Tucson at the time for the same reason…best deal on long term financing.
the story about the gas tank brought back memories of a lot of my hard earned dollars trickling out on the ground when I bought some old warhorse and filled it for the first time. I got to where if it was empty when I saw it I was crawling underneath to check the tank out first thing!
It’s because they last longer. Despite what we’d like to think we remember about the ’57 Chev or the ’68 Dart or whatever that went 300,000 miles on nothing but oil changes, that’s not what reality was like back then. Cars needed constant service and parts replacement; it was accepted as normal maintenance.
One reason cars didn’t last as long in the “good old days” was that lots of people simply didn’t do much to maintain them. The advent of emissions inspections, along with Check Engine Lights (which must be addressed during the mandatory annual inspection in Pennsylvania) has forced people to pay more attention to maintenance.
It wasn’t uncommon for people to buy brand-new cars and ignore regular maintenance and even the basics, such as regular washes and waxes. Our neighbors were like this. They regularly bought brand-new Mopars – including the first 1977 Chrysler LeBaron in town – and then basically ignored them. They rarely even washed them (and when they did wash the LeBaron once, they horrified me by using laundry detergent for the soap!).
I asked my mother whether she and my father ever regularly maintained their cars. “No, we didn’t bother with it until something went wrong.” Even regular oil changes were somewhat optional.
Yes, I do believe that today’s cars are better built (particularly from the standpoint of rust resistance), but a lot of the problems with old cars at that time were from neglect.
I think you’re correct that people simply didn’t do much to maintain them, and that’s why old cars didn’t generally last. However I firmly believe that to still be the case today. Yes there’s emmissions and safety inspections, but not every state or county has them, and standards for who do can vary greatly, with the former sometimes consisting of as little as seeing if the CEL is on or not and the latter based on whether or not the bulbs work. Most people just skirt by on the minimum. My Dad limped his GS300 through bi annual emissions inspections(obd II test) on two occasions(4 years) and got by by resetting the ECM unhooking by the battery, driving it gingerly for a couple miles near the test facility to get into that sweet spot where there’s no P1000 error code, but hadn’t yet detected the catalytic converters were shot, and taking the test immediately. Once the converters completely let go last year, he got rid of the car.
And yet when American cars of that era were regularly serviced – as you do in a country where a Galaxie or Bel Air is a big luxury car – they would run for long periods. But those regular services involved replacement of a lot of parts then regarded as regular wear items that would have today’s car owner screaming at being ripped off.
This topic is interesting to me, because it reinforces conclusions I’ve already come to on my own.
As much as I love vintage vehicles, they DO require a lot more maintenance and have more items on them subject to wear and tear, compared to modern vehicles. I’m sure I’ve forgotten all i had to have done (or do) to cars in the ’70’s. Granted, to me they LOOK a lot better than newer cars.
On the other hand, when something DOES go wrong on a newer vehicle, they’re far more complicated and more expensive to repair.
And newer low-mileage vehicles sometimes suffer from lack of use. I bought a 2003 Buick LeSabre with 32,000 miles on it. When I bought it, the trans cooling lines, steering rack, battery and rear air shocks (the latter a well-known failure item on these cars) had already been replaced. I had to have the front control arms and sway bar bushings replaced (due to rot), and the LF hub replaced.