This subject is debated endlessly in the automotive community over the years, so naturally I thought I’d take my own swing at the topic. It wasn’t going to be easy, since I’m not one to commonly pick sides. So I decided that I was going to look at this with both logic and context, and try to take everything else out of the process.
So let’s see if we can’t come to a conclusion: What is better overall – Old Cars or New Cars? We’re including classics and even antique cars for this too; they’re not going to get a special category, they’re going to be grouped in with everything 20 years and older for this article for the sake of “fairness”. We’re also excluding electric cars and hybrids, because those vehicles are another topic entirely.
My personal opinion is that older cars are better, but that’s just an opinion backed with emotion and experience, and it doesn’t mean much in what we’re trying to discuss here. So how would you actually figure out what cars are generally better and why? Well, I decided to do some research and see what other people said. For me, an old car is 30 years old or more, but for this article let’s say a new(er) car is under the 20 year mark, and everything older would be considered an “old” car or classic vehicle of sorts. Though some people might think 10 or 15 years is old for a car, I think 20 years is a good middle ground for the large majority of people. So to begin, let’s start going through 10 different arguments from each side, and see how well they really hold up.
1. The “Emissions” Argument – That new cars have lower emissions and pollute less, and it’s less likely that older vehicle included as many recycled materials, or were built as efficiently as the newer car. This is mostly true since these days all cars are designed to be more efficient and pollute as little as possible to comply with the mandatory rising EPA regulations. However, there is one problem with this argument: 20 years ago and older the regulations were different and what was expected of the auto manufactures was also different, so comparing the two cars 20 years apart isn’t entirely fair when it comes to comparing pollution and the time period. But regardless, buying a new car would be better than buying a used car if your goal is to pollute as little carbon as possible, even if the process of building a new car uses both energy and resources, and there are also environmental costs to disposing of the old car.
2. The “Depreciation” Argument – That buying an old car will be cheaper since the value of the car dropped since it was new and buying it used will save you money, this is true most of the time. But if the car has damage that needs to be repaired, you spend however more it may cost to fix the issues. If the country you’re in happens to be in a state of inflation and used car prices skyrocket, you spend more to get a decent used car in general. You only benefit in the circumstances when buying a used car if you don’t overpay, don’t have any immediate problems, and you can keep and use the car as long as you would a new car. Though I suppose this argument is only relevant to you if you can’t afford a new car or don’t care to buy a new car.
3. The “Reliability” Argument – That new cars are more reliable, dependable, and better built than old cars, however this argument doesn’t work for one reason. Of course the new car is more reliable, it’s new, it had better be more reliable compared to the 30 year old car with over 200k miles on it you’ve been driving. If not then it would be classified as a lemon (That’s what the lemon law is for), you can’t compare the two because one is so much older than the other is, and the only real way the new car will prove it’s honest reliability is by making it the same amount of time as the old one did, is it so much to ask that you should get 100k miles and 10 years with no major issues out of a new car before calling it “reliable” in the first place? Because it seems like some cars made now still can’t hit that mark, just like some cars 50 years ago couldn’t hit that mark either.
4. The “Simplicity” Argument – That old cars are more simple and easy to fix than new car, this is true but to an extent. There’s no denying that old cars are more simple, but sometimes they require more manual labor, and “simple” doesn’t always mean “low maintenance”. Because an old car is still old and will still need work to keep it going, some of it possibly being expensive and time consuming, and most new cars are at least a few years away from needing any extensive work. Therefore while old cars maybe more simple, that doesn’t mean they’ll be less troublesome, so if you own and are planning on keeping an old car you better start learning what you can about so you can fix the possible upcoming problems, but it shouldn’t be too hard because they’re more simple, right?
5. The “Safety” Argument – That new cars have better drivers aids and better safety in a crash, this is obviously true. As new cars were meant to abide the pedestrian safety laws and the new crash tests the NHTSA has made, as a car 20 years ago while having some of those things in mind wasn’t fully designed to do what the new cars do. And if you want to go back even further to 30 or 40 years ago, most cars didn’t even have things like airbags, TCS, ABS, etc. And by going back 50 or 60 years ago, you simply have the lap belt and nothing else, as cars were not made with safety in mind back then. But that never stopped people from driving like maniacs back then, and none of the new warning systems in cars do that now either, thought it appears they’re going to start putting speed limiters and kill switches in cars soon so…maybe they will soon.
6. The “Car Payment And Registration Fees” Argument – That old cars are easier to register and insure, and you don’t have to pay car payments. I think this is true in general, auto insurance for older cars may be cheaper than insuring newer vehicles of the same make and model if the used car is cheaper to repair or replace. Most cars depreciate over time, decreasing in value, which lowers the maximum amount an insurance company would have to pay in the event of an accident. Also, as your car gets older and decreases in value, you can make your insurance cheaper by dropping optional coverages like comprehensive and collision. But sometimes the insurance company will just screw you over and make you pay double or even triple what your car is worth, and if your car increases in value you may have to pay more depending on how your insurance company works.
7. The “Technology” Argument – That new cars have all the newest technology and gadgets that you can use when you buy it, which of course is true. But it can also be a downside, it’s unknown how long that tech is going to last, and when it does stop functioning how much will it cost to repair? And do you really need all those gadgets in the first place? How often are you going to use them? How many of the gadgets are going to prove useful to you or your family? Will they need updating? And there’s a personal preference (For me at least) when it comes to where everything on the dash is centered, is everything at least close to where you would like it to be? You’d better hope so, because now you have it and you’re going to have to use it as long as you have the car.
8. The “Design” Argument – That old cars look nicer compared new cars of the modern age. To me this is true, but that’s a personal preference, and it might differ with other peoples opinion. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I that’s also true, as I’ve heard some people actually say that some modern cars are better looking than some older cars. I think one of the best things about this argument is that you can compare any two cars to each other to see for yourself which one looks better, and so can anyone else. But you do have to take in consideration what type of cars you’re comparing, like how it isn’t fair if you compare a 1970 Mercury Cyclone to a 2003 Honda Fit, because of course one is more attractive than the other.
9. The “Performance” Argument – That new cars are generally much faster than old cars, this is mostly true with some exceptions. But for the most part horsepower is now very easy to obtain either with buying a high horsepower or modding the new car you already have, plus the factor of the horsepower rating before 1972 being exaggerated. Not to say there weren’t some fast cars in the 1950s and onward, but now the horsepower is higher thanks to engine technology such as direct injection and turbo chargers in production cars, however one thing that hasn’t changed in the modern era is speed is still a matter of money, how fast do you want to go?
10. The “Personality” Argument – That old cars have more personality than new cars, I think this is true, but this one is also personal preference. Though I would say generally older cars seem to have more personality than newer cars considering how most new cars seem to just either look aggressive or boring with very little style in between, with many older cars having so many different faces that it makes it rather easy to tell them apart (at least to a certain point), though i suppose when that started to end is when the majority of car companies started doing badge engineering and having world engines for their cars, but I guess that’s for the individual to decide.
11. The “Customization” Argument – That when you buy a new car, you can customize it with whatever factory options you want, and while it’s true and a plus when it comes to buying a new car, with the automobile aftermarket you can do almost anything you want to your car after you buy it, but the difference is with the factory options the car just comes to you like you want it rather than having to add the modifications after you bought it for even more money, and some people just prefer to get their chosen options from the company website and leave it at that, and that’s perfectly fine if that’s all you want to do with your car, sometimes the factory has things that the aftermarket can’t offer you yet anyway…or does it?
12. The “Social Capital” Argument – That old cars (More specifically classic and vintage cars) offer you great opportunities like friendly conversation, car clubs, car shows, and for you to learn more about cars in general. This has become true more and more as time moves forward and cars begin to age, and many people find it fascinating that someone cared to keep an old car on the road and maintained all this time, and from what it seems this will most likely always be the case when it comes to vehicles aging. It’s funny to think that some cars from the 1990s are starting to hit classic status now, and it’s even stranger to think that cars from the abyss we call the 2020s will one day possibly be classics too, that is if they make it that far, and hopefully at least a few will.
13. The “Handling” Argument – That new cars handle better than older cars, this is generally true. But again, thanks to the aftermarket there are ways to solve this, as new or better springs, shocks, and tires will do wonders for almost any car of any year. And there were many cars back in the 90s and before that handled rather well too, though most of them were sports cars or race cars, as some vehicles like big sedans or trucks were never known being well handling vehicles back then, and while both categories handle better now, I still wouldn’t recommend using a stock ford F-250 as a race vehicle.
14. The “Driver Engagement” Argument – That old cars are more engaging to drive and feel connected to the car, this is true…I guess. I mean the less technology the more in tune you have to be with your car depending on how it’s been treated, however I would argue that the auto industry has still made driver engaging cars in the modern era, like the Dodge Viper and the new Toyota GR86, both sports cars with manual transmission, and speaking of transmissions this is the same argument is some use to say that manual transmissions are more driver engaging than automatic transmissions, which is also true because you have to do more just to have the car function, though this could still be said just for older cars in general.
15. The “Rust” Argument – That new cars have better rust-proofing and protection than older cars, this seems to have been proven true over time, but it does still come down to the climate. Some cars from the 60s and 70s would rust away in 10 years, while others would stay solid for over 50 years, because metal will still rust regardless of the protection if it’s sits on the shore long enough. But I’d say for the general climate newer cars do have better rust-proofing, not to say you can’t find an older vehicle with almost no rust, but it’s likely that it lived in a dry climate it’s whole life.
16. The “Project” Argument – That old cars are more fun projects than newer cars, I personally think this is an opinion rather than an argument, but it can be true sometimes. As old cars can be easier to work on and customize, the potential for a project can be much higher than a newer car if you have more options or a smaller budget. But not everyone is in the same position, so what project in general my be better for some people than it is for others, as it all mostly depends on your budget, circumstances, and personal tastes. And not really if it’s new or old, or even if it’s fast or slow for that matter.
17. The “Nostalgia” Argument – That new cars are always better than the vehicles of previous years, and that we are just nostalgic for the cars we grew up in and because that’s what we learned to work on, and just because we see modern stuff in all states of disrepair doesn’t mean that cars a decade or two back were better. I don’t see this is true, but maybe my view doesn’t count because I drive older cars than I grew up in today, and to me old cars drive and ride just as good as the new cars do, provided they are taken care of. So this argument doesn’t work on me because I didn’t grow up in a 1960s or 1970s car, but I instead bought them when I got older so I could experience them. But maybe some of you agree that it’s all just nostalgia, and have stories of “Never meet your hero’s”.
18, The “Planned Obsolescence” Argument – That old cars weren’t made to break as easily as newer cars are, I don’t think this is true, at least not fully. Because as far back as the 1960s some cars were made cheaply to save money, and if you go into 1970s economy cars like the Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega both had problems due to cheap materials and poor build quality, cars have almost always used poor materials in certain places to save money, the base and economy models are especially built to a specific budget. And this still continues today, but it’s not as recent as some people think, but I would say that some newer cars are built to start falling apart a little after the warranty is up (Or even before). Even though as a rule, I would hope that cars from any era would be better built and hold up better than cars from previous eras.
And so, with 18 arguments (9 for each side) and after a lot of thinking, I had an answer, but it didn’t come to me until I thought about it in a more “Out of the box” way. I believe the simple truth is this: The best car that you can buy is the car that makes you truly happy or satisfied, regardless of how new or old it is. Now you may be asking how I came to that conclusion and why it’s true, because basically what I’m saying is that the whole “Old Vs New” argument isn’t actually that helpful in the first place.
Remember that time when someone asked you for first car advice or for car advice in general, and they bought the exact thing you told them to get? Yeah, I don’t either, because of all the times someone asked me for car advice I can’t remember one time they actually took it, I just remember the times they ended up not taking my advice but didn’t want me to say “I told you so” when something went wrong, and kept the car no matter how expensive the repair bills got.
It was just the car they wanted, and not the car they needed, and they were looking to me to validate their opinion of what they wanted to buy, rather than what was smart to buy. But if that car really makes them happy, regardless of how expensive and impractical it is, why should I criticize them for driving it?
All cars have different problems and solutions, and all people have different tastes and opinions when it comes to those problem. Cars can be difficult to repair decades later, as some of the craftsmanship that was common back then and used to build those parts ends up being extremely uncommon years later. While the majority of the car maybe just common materials, parts and service that’s period correct maybe extremely difficult to find today.
The idea that the previous generation of a model is superior to the current generation is continuously updating. The models that people now prop up as the gold standard of automotive design were once the new models that people chastised as being uninspired and too technologically advanced.
A good friend of mine has this 1978 Chevy El Camino in the picture above, it has a 350 V8 and a 4 speed manual, and it’s an absolute pile of sh*t (in his words). Something breaks on it on at least a monthly basis, it has front end damage from a fender bender, at idle it always sounds like it’s loudly gargling water, it has mismatched body parts, and the most most recent issue is the headlights completely stopped working. Oh, he does lots of burnouts in it, which is why it’s gone though 4 transmissions and frequently needs new rear tires, so this car is an actual death trap that’s highly unreliable and unsafe due to the lack of seatbelts.
But he loves it, he drives it everywhere and anywhere because it’s his only car, and he will keep repairing it and driving it until it either rots away or gets damaged beyond repair. Is this the best car for him? No way, but is it the right car for him? I think so, I think that him and his car go hand in hand with each other, and that it completes him in ways not many other cars could. And he loves it for what it is and has lots of fun with it, so why should I tell him to do otherwise?
If you have a running and driving car that’s over 40 years old or more, regardless of the amount of work it needed to get there, that’s still impressive considering it was not made to last that long. Because no car or any consumer product for that matter is or ever was made to last that long, do you think any of the Ford Model T’s were made to last 100 years? Do you think any of the 1960s muscle cars were made to last 50 years? No, of course not, but some of them did, because someone cared about it enough to keep it going.
I can only hope that the passion for maintaining a vehicle for an extended period of time continues through the 21st century, even though I have serious doubts that most of the new cars will age well, I still think it’s worth trying to keep them on the road for the 30 years or longer. And I know i’m not the only one who thinks that, but if anyone ever asks me what’s better? old cars or new cars, I’m just going to tell them “Buy whatever makes you happy.”
The infamous 1970 Buick Riviera. When better cars are built, Buick will build them.
I think somebody could write a 300-page PhD thesis on this topic. IMHO driving what makes you happy is key…some people love having the latest gadgets in their cars, others value sportiness, still others value character, etc. There’s no one correct answer.
My own personal opinion is that cars reached a peak somewhere between 1990 and 2000 when the amount of technology in cars was enough to make them reliable and safe but not so much that it negatively impacted reliability and repairability. I’d very much prefer to buy something in that age range when it comes time to replace my current daily driver…anything older would worry me about reliability if driven daily and I’d honestly be selling my soul if I bought a brand new car.
You’re right, someone probably could write a massive essay on this, but I just thought it would be better to tackle all the most common reasons for each side and then make a point on why this argument in general doesn’t really work.
I actually saw multiple people saying that new cars were more comfortable than older cars, which at first I couldn’t have imagined why they would think such a thing, then I realized they must’ve never ridden in an classic Lincoln, Chrysler, or Cadillac.
My older sister had a 67 Mustang she bought when it was about a year old. I have an 06 Mustang that I bought when it was almost 15 years old. A look at the interior shows a similar looking instrument panel and the interior itself is about the same size.
Differences/improvements? The older car had a V8 rated back then at 200+ horsepower. The newer car? A V6 with 205 horsepower under a revised rating system. Old car had a 3 speed automatic transmission, newer one has a 5 speed automatic transmission. (I can’t help wondering if the old car had even a 4 speed automatic transmission if the fuel mileage wouldn’t be nearly the same. (Old car: approximately 20 mpg, newer car: nearly 25.)
Old car had absolutely no powered accessories, newer car: power steering, power 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS, air conditioning, power windows and locks, and cruise control. The older car had loose steering and ” wooden feeling ” brakes. Newer car: fairly tight steering, yet ” wooden feeling ” brakes.
Chassis rigidity? Even though it’s a convertible, the newer car feels more rigid.
And even though it’s more rigid, none of the vintage Ford squeaks and rattles.
The newer car: doesn’t feel as roomy, thanks to its center console and the secondary instruments are very difficult to read as safety has (apparently) forced the dials to be non-reflective.
I like the newer car, but the older car, in the same condition as the newer one wouldn’t be that much of a sacrifice…except for the lack of air conditioning.
Interesting comparison. I’m surprised that a V8 67 Mustang gets 20 mpg.
The other day I saw a tow truck pulling a really cherry 67 fastback with major front end accident damage. Repairable, but will cost a ton. The perils of street driving a classic! Of course, the unmentioned comparison point is that if worse comes to worse, you are much more likely to walk away from an accident in the 06.
We’re only a couple of years from our Mustangs being classics, Howard… (at least in Maryland). I for one am looking forward to getting Historic Tags for my own ’07.
I’m with you on the comparison though, as our V6’s return pretty decent mileage and power compared to an old 289 ‘stang.
I guess since my own Mustang is now 15 model years old, and has around 182K miles on the clock, I see it as a OLD car to maintain. When I got my Civic in 2016 to replace the Mustang as a daily driver, the differences even in only 9 model years was astounding.
Each coupe has its charms, and driving pleasures. I feel more connected to the road in the Mustang, since the Civic has electric steering and brakes, whereas the Mustang, albeit powered, the steering and brakes provide more feedback. Is one better than the other? That depends. That Civic is like 2.25 turns lock to lock. It feels like it’s on rails when I drive it. The Mustang’s steering feels more engaging.
Tech? Yeah, I LOVE the Civic’s tech. But driving the Mustang (with less tech) still puts a smile on my face every time.
It really is hard to choose which is better, old or new. But in the end, the “Drive what makes you happy” argument is the best one that can be made here….
Given the innately subjective aspects of vehicle selection and ownership, logical arguments
are generally used to bolster support for doing whatever one wants to anyway, Having
owned “classics” as daily drivers for the majority of my 32 driving years, my observation
is that the more one has to drive it the less appealing a vintage vehicle becomes. The
operative term here is “has to” meaning work, school, etc, with no other easy option.
Having greatly enjoyed my older rides when they were sparsely used or secondary
transportation, the experience changed dramatically when 1000 mile or more months
were normal. Being regularly pressed to stay ahead of the needs of an older vehicle
becomes a stressor when you have to plan the rest of your life around it.
This is what I was thinking, ‘The Daily-Driver Argument’. Likewise, I didn’t see it directly mentioned, but ‘The Repair Argument’ would seem to apply, as well (although it might not be quite as relative, considering how tough it is to get parts for even new vehicles these worldwide pandemic days).
The idea is an old car that is used as regular transportation is going to break down (maybe a lot) and most people simply don’t have the time and/or wherewithal to be dealing with unreliable wheels. There are a lot of old cars I’d love to have, but I’m always reminded of my younger days and how much of a hassle it was to keep any old car in operable condition. No, thanks. Unless I’m Jay Leno, I’ll stick with a new vehicle with a warranty.
I own 4 new-ish vehicles and 1 old one, so I guess I already voted.
My ’88 Camaro IROC-Z 350 burns Premium and gets @ 14 mpg in town, and @ 20 on highway. It runs about a 15.0 sec.1/4 and thanks to its F-41 suspension and modern radials still handles very nicely on dry roads. My ’21 Civic EX has a lil 1.5L turbo hits 30-40 mpg on regular and gets thru a 1/4 in @ 15.2 seconds. Handling is good for a FWD car, but on a dry road the Camaro excels!
The Camaro has lousy, non supportive seats and they were from day 1. The Civic has comfy, fairly supportive seats. Both cars have 4 wheel discs, but NO comparison between how well they haul their respective cars down, even ignoring the ABS the Civic has.
Functionally the Civic has the edge, but for Fun To Drive………Camaro all the way! Styling is subjective, but I find the Camaro to be eye candy; the Civic is a explosion in a mattress factory: busy, BUSY! However, both are VERY GOOD cars for my automotive “needs”!! :):) DFO
Posts like this make me love my ’02 Silverado WT even more. Last month it turned 20, so by the parameters set in this post, it’s a “classic”.
I appreciate the “modernity” of electronic engine control, ABS, R&P steering, overdrive automatic, air bags, and 4-wheel disc brakes.
I appreciate the “classic-ness” of BOF construction, traditional suspension, pushrod engine, and the lack of interior amenities.
All-in-all, I feel like my truck is what every “resto-mod” aspires to be – but straight from the factory!
Good analogy, that 02 is basically a factory resto-mod without the 67-72 body (but similar proportions).
I still love old cars, and have owned a lot of them in the last 40 years.
But since I went all electric and got a Tesla Model S as daily driver, I simply can’t go back to a ICE car. Way to unsophisticated compared to EV’s, the noise, the smell of gas and exhaust, the way ro complicated maintenance they need, never again for me.
But again, I still love old cars for the looks and for the time they represent.
(And I respect everyone owning and driving them, it always makes me happy when I see a well loved and used car like above mentioned El Camino going by)
Road and Track ran an article discussing 1970 Dodge Challenger vs a 2008 Dodge Challenger. It didn’t pan either one in the writeups, although it did throw some kudos to the 1970. It said the new model was heavy, softly sprung, the transmission wouldn’t hold gears, there is no limited slip differential, and the interior was somewhat boring.
Having a classic car for me would be a problem. I’m not mechanically skilled, and would have to find a place to keep the car. When a buddy won a 1965 Mustang in a contest a few years ago, he had to sell it for the latter reason. I would stress over the upkeep of the car, and I know I would drive it in the nice weather, but probably not often.
Newer cars are more practical for me, in that they are safer and more reliable. Both my cars are from the 2010s and have held up very well; cars I owned from the 70s and 80s needed frequent repairs. On the downside, the expenditure required to put a new car on the road is out of reach for alot of us, and we have to look for new-ish cars when one is needed.
I think the arguments are well laid out, the only one I would want to question would be insurance costs for old cars. An insurance company may be able to reimburse less for an older car, unless insured as a classic with a specialty company. When factoring in safety, the likelihood of injury in an older car without air bags, shoulder straps, ABS, crumple zones, etc., would result in higher payouts for personal injuries.
I love old cars, but for me, it’s like the old saying, take a picture, it will last longer.
Great writeup.
I was questioning the insurance one too honestly, because I know people use special classic insurance like Hagerty that end up charging a lot more because it’s a classic, but the majority of people I asked said it was cheaper for older cars in general to insure, so I just went with it.
I have my ’68 Beetle insured through Hagerty and my daily drivers insured through USAA. The cost to insure my Beetle through Hagerty is half the price of what USAA wanted to charge me.
I know we are talking cars here, but I have a 1983 Ford Ranger 4×4, that I swapped in a 302/C4 into back in 1991. Still love driving it, and have no plans to get rid of it. Could use paint, and that might just be OD green for the fun of it.. And all old cars were new cars at some point.
Newest car in my fleet: 2002 Chrysler Concorde Lxi. 255,000 miles. It’s only still alive because I am stubborn and worked really hard to undo as much of the abuse it received from prior owners. When it’s good, it does a number of things very well, when its bad, its a frustrating, exasperating nightmare. I hate working on it, everything is so tightly packaged and too many things controlled by electronics. This car desperately needs a new heater core, but I absolutely do not want to drop the dashboard to get to it. Repair shops won’t touch it either when they find out what kind of car needs the heater core. If this car sits for a few weeks, the transmission is reluctant to do what you want it to at first. I can only imagine what a “will it run and drive?” video would look like if it was left in a field for years.
Next oldest: 1989 Dodge Dakota, 145,000 miles. My dad rescued this one from the original owner and replaced both the 2.5 four cylinder and the 5 speed manual transmission. He also repainted it at one point. Gave him very reliable service until he got too sick to keep driving it. I bought it from my mom a year after my dad passed away and sorted out issues with the clutch caused by it sitting a number of years. It’s now a very reliable truck again, and I’ll be getting it ready to repaint again this spring. Very easy to work on except for heater core access which mercifully I do not need at this time, not laden with electronics to where I need an advanced degree from Starfleet Academy to work on it.
Much older: 1979 Dodge St. Regis, 280,000 miles. This was my primary car for a long time and it kept outlasting cars meant to semi retire it. My dad bought this car from the original owner in the 1980’s and rebuilt the 318, and except for replacing the cylinder heads and a timing chain has nearly 200,000 miles on his rebuild. I got the car at 186,000 miles and I’m nearing 100k miles driven by me. It now needs subframe bushings and it’s probably time to replace the ball joints my dad installed about the same time he rebuilt the engine. This car gave me the least trouble of my daily drivers, tried to keep this a three season car but newer cars breaking down often forced me to drive it in the winter. It’s not pretty to look at paint wise, but I’ve kept up the maintenance. Very easy to work on except for the upcoming subframe bushing replacement. When I get some things taken care of with this one, I look forward to crossing 300,000 miles in it.
Oldest car: 1968 Plymouth Fury VIP, 150,000 miles estimated. The speedometer head needs replacement so the cable has been unhooked to stop the noise and the needle bounce. This car was bought from the widow of the original owner in pristine condition by my uncle who kept it pristine. Eventually my grandfather got the car and kept it up very well mechanically. My dad updated it to electronic ignition for him in the 1980’s. Unfortunately as my grandfather aged, and his reflexes and eyesight turned for the worse, he started bumping into things with it. Eventually, he had to be made to give up driving which was a very sad day. The car then sits in a field for 13 years before I got it in 2009. I had it back on the road by the end of 2010. It survived sitting outdoors amazingly well. Outside of replacing external bolt on things like alternator, water pump, timing chain and the fuel pump, the 318 engine has never been apart ever. I’ve managed to undo most of the body damage. This car is a joy to drive, I’ve made some minor changes like adding a factory front sway bar, a fuel return line and replacing the Carter BBD with a late 70’s Holley 2280 two barrel. The easiest car to work on. Under my stewardship, never sees road salt and is garaged out of the weather.
My criteria for ownership: Can I afford to fix it myself? Do I have the skill to fix it myself? I don’t have a lot of money for the kind of repairs I see people paying for newer vehicles. I don’t entirely trust all of the modern tech when it gets old and starts malfunctioning. I see area junkyards full of cars between 10-20 years old that look for all the world like they should just drive away. At least my old cars don’t need software updates. I don’t know if my Concorde needed an software update if its even still possible. Hope I don’t find out.
Anyone who has made it this far reading this has noticed that three of my four vehicles passed down through the family except my newest one. Now if you think I’m against new cars, I’m not. I just can’t afford them and if money were no object, I’d have a new V6 Challenger in the driveway as long as I never had to work on it beyond oil changes. That would be my winter beater, lol. But if money were no object, I’d have three of my four vehicles restored/resto modded.
If a day comes where electric is the only option and miraculously the money was there, a place in Austin, Texas converts classics to electric. I have a couple I’d want converted if that was the only way for me to continue to drive my beloved Fury or St. Regis.
If my photo shows up, both cars are now running on whitewall tires.
Love your Mopar fleet! Not many people out there driving St. Regis’s these days. I do occasionally see Dakotas of that vintage, so they must be pretty good mechanically. I’m sure it’s the angle which makes the rear end of the VIP look especially loooong.
Thanks! Up to the late nineties, I’d see a near twin of my St.Regis running around, after that not so many of any variety of the R body. Anymore, I’m the only one I see in my travels. I do see LOTS of first generation Dakotas on a daily basis. They sold very well in Central Kentucky. With the spare tire out, the trunk of the VIP is an inch or so shy of six feet deep. This photo has my Dakota with the St. Regis.
Excellent story and photo. I was able to enlarge the photo to get a look at the Fury. It looks like they used the same side marker lights on these as were used on the Charger. That body looks in really good shape, unrestored too.
Your article reminded me about my 2041 300C, in terms of a software update. The GPS system keeps asking for a software update, which I keep ignoring. However, if the head unit ever decides to go konk, that would be a different story. Another difference between old and new cars – electronics. Let’s see how many new cars of today can last as long as your Fury has.
Thanks. The photo hides some of the dents a bit. The front fender is from another ’68 Fury and I transferred the VIP trim to it. The side marker lights are identical to the Charger side markers. For what it’s been through, the body is in good shape, a little quarter panel rust, a little rust in the trunk with the best part being totally solid floors, stub frame and rear frame rails. On the other side of the car, the front fender is also a replacement and the passenger door is from my RIP ’67 Sport Fury.
Software and telematics I think are going to kill a lot of current cars when they get old that otherwise would still be going. I was at a garage a few years ago getting some muffler work done on the Concorde and the shop had 2005ish Dodge Charger that was pretty much a door stop because of an electronics conflict based on when the car was built and either the body control computer or the engine computer wouldn’t work because it didn’t recognise the VIN or something like that. I had wanted one of those early four door Chargers because they look more like a Fury than a Charger but with electronics like that, I’m keeping the Concorde going as long as I can.
In my youth I found then- new cars fascinating and drove as many as possible. I drove hundreds of mostly newer (some older) cars in the 80s and 90s , between working at dealerships, my cars, friends and relatives cars, work vehicles, rentals etc. I loved comparing driving experiences between cars, exploring driving dynamics and engineering features.
But interests change and, aside from a bunch of Hino trucks, my 2000 Volvo is the newest car I’ve driven, so consider me unqualified to answer here.
I honestly don’t have the attention span to commit myself to one newer, relatively expensive car. A vast collection of classic/old vehicles for me to mess around with is more my speed.
I’m a bit odd in that I truly enjoy repairs, maintenance and upgrades, which is a pastime more conducive and available in older cars.
Very good summation of all the factors in new vs. old! Thanks.
I drive a 2011 and a 1996. I still have a hard time thinking of my 96 as “old”, but it undeniably is now that it’s over 25 years old. I specifically sought a 96 over a 95 because I wanted OBD2. Starting to question that now, as the check engine light is driving me crazy and I haven’t been able to solve the problem. Even my 2011, which I factory ordered and still think of as “new” is rapidly approaching old status. It has been rock solid reliable, though.
It’s hard to argue against the fact that new cars work better, but I can’t help but observe that in every side-by-side photo above, the older car looks better.
Very interesting article! My daily driver is 51 years old and very dependable, although requiring understanding and more regular maintenance than a modern. It is simple enough that I can work on it and parts are available and pretty cheap (not true for all old cars).The caveats are that I don’t have a long daily commute and do not transport my family in it, as crash protection is minimal. My wife gets the modern, high end SUV and insists that my life insurance is high.
The payoff is that I am totally involved when I drive my small, odd air cooled machine and can use all of its performance without getting tickets. It makes me and other people smile and every journey interesting. Love it!
I still love seeing and reading about cars as an emotional and intellectual hobby, but my actual ownership is all about transportation and more specifically, travel, exploration, camping and hiking and biking along the way. For me, the reliability and functionality of modern vehicles is essential. That said, I think there’s a sweet spot that none of my own vehicles actually quite fit in: modern powertrain and safety technology (airbags, crush zones, ABS) with a 6 speed manual transmission, power windows, locks, AC and cruise control and Bluetooth, and no other gadgets. No touch screens, no climate control, no drive modes and active safety cameras, etc. Petrichor’s recently profiled 4Runner comes close as a vehicle still sold new today, though an SUV doesn’t quite fit my preferences. And my two motorcycles were both introduced in the last century, though one is “only” 15 years old by model year. I do wish they had fuel injection but no other modern tech, and certainly not modern styling.
As to occupant safety and pollution, which are my two bugaboos about trying to daily drive a vintage car, it was not only what the regulators were willing to demand and what the manufacturers were willing to do. The safety and emissions technologies simply didn’t exist to create anywhere near the levels of safety and low pollution that we see in new cars today.
That’s not to say that the regulators didn’t nudge the manufacturers along, and that the manufacturers didn’t try to push back against many of those demands. The older car guys among us watched it happen in real time, bringing us cars that wouldn’t idle, and seat belts that were uncomfortable and awkward to use. But that’s how one gets to here from there. I, for one, celebrate that people can often walk away from the most hideous accident scenes, and that I can walk through a parking lot and not smell the cars that are driving through it.
Finally, we often take for granted many of the relatively awesome capabilities of current cars versus the old ones. But if the new ones had the same bundles of styling, driver engagement, and emotional signals as the old ones, we wouldn’t need to keep around the old cars at all. I actually enjoy and love to observe the sweep of car development and evolution over time, and look at where it is taking us and where we have been. Part of the appeal of Studebakers, Packards, and ‘55 Chevys is that they came, they went, and there they are—or were. Rather like families and friendships, they are made for a time and place, and even when they endure, they evolve. No going back, not completely.
Random thoughts about my three year old, 1973 Dodge Challenger Rallye 340:
STRONG “Mopar Mouse Motor” engine. When the Torqueflite automatic downshifted to second gear and the huge secondaries on the factory 4-BBL Thermoquad carburetor opened up, the ROAARRR would drown out my Pioneer Superturner stereo. The gear shifter linkage would emit a sympathetic vibration. I pizzed off my best friend with this car repeatedly by “sucking the headlights” out of his new ’76 Firebird Trans Am on a regular basis.
Typical numb Mopar power steering. I got used to it…to a certain degree. How I wanted the power steering set up out of a Camaro or Firebird in my Chellanger!
Scary brakes. If you carefully modulated the brake pedal, giving the front disc brakes time to work before locking up the rear drum brakes, it stopped rather quickly (for the time period). But if you “panic stopped” by slamming the brake pedal as hard as you could, it immediately give you frozen solid rear brakes and you would slew/skid all over the place.
Comfortable (again, for the time period) bucket seats; but sat too close to the ground for me, even in my twenties.
Good sized trunk for that type of car. It could hold much more crappppp than the trunk of the above mentioned Trans Am.
To this day I still miss the cranking sound of the Mopar Highland Park Hummingbird gear reduction starter. (NANG-NANG-NANG-NANG-NANGGGGGGGG-ROARRRRR!) Other cars just sounded so dull and mundane by comparison.
Given all it’s good and bad points; I’d still buy it back again today, in the condition and price I sold it for when I got tired of it (along with my former full head of hair, flat waist and pumped up weight lifter physique.)
+1 on Chrysler starters!
+2 on Chrysler starters! Fortunately, my St. Regis still has its Hammtrack Hummingbird, but my Fury when I took its old starter in for warranty replacement ended up with a mini starter. Miss the sound, but admittedly, it starts much faster.
Oh yeah! 340 is a motor I would love to experience!
Well, Mark, I STILL have my ’74 Challenger w/ 69k actual miles. 318/auto, stared life as a base car, but I added and/or subtracted factory OEM pieces, and did a color change to make it what I wanted it to be. Contemplating selling it now, as I don’t/haven’t driven it much since I acquired my second ’70 Charger (the Challenger replaced the original totaled Charger!)
Of course the new cars are much better – and certainly safer than their processors.
The one thing that sticks in my craw was the death of the pillarless hardtop. My belief is still very strong – if the back seat is usable and is used, the glass at least needs to open, A/C or not!
As for the VW Beetle, The last version closely resembles the original, while the previous gen looked like a beach ball. Also, can’t get over the engine being in the wrong end! But, so what? Doesn’t matter, it has been cancelled anyway.
Won’t get too deep into it but except for the obvious. The newer car clearly has more power per cu.in. Clearly handles better, safer, and no doubt gets better mpg. The newer car lacks visibility which drives me crazy.. The newer car has so much technology embedded into it that it can be a nightmare. The most important one for me? Newer cars are made so that it is pretty much impossible even for an above average guy to work and repair them himself. That is the ultimate deal breaker for me and why I won’t get anything past the two 2004s I have.
I completely agree with all of that. It’s the main reason I’m trying to keep my ’02 Concorde going for as long as possible. Right to Repair is going to be one of the biggest issues as the newer cars age and people who own them find they are locked out of any chance of repairing their cars.
I would have to say the new cars are much better from a build quality standpoint and a reliability standpoint. From 1964 to around 1984 I drove GM vehicles and every one turned into a money pit with all sorts of problems. The vehicles I’ve owned since about 2004 (all Hondas) have been the best automobiles I have owned both from a reliability standpoint and build quality. New vehicles clearly have more power, better fuel economy and are vastly safer. The complaint that new cars are virtually impossible for the average owner is a valid one, but at age 75 I do not enjoy crawling under cars anymore, I’ll let the mechanics do that.
One problem of making this comparison is that there are no “new” old cars. In other words unless a car has received a total quality restoration, it is well along or past it’s intended original service life. Adding to this is that many (or most!) times, repair and maintenance has usually been performed haphazardly, things are fixed only when they break. They usually do not receive scheduled preventive maintenance. So the old car starts at a real disadvantage in this type of comparison.
There is a book entitled; “The Car Keepers Guide” in which the author lays out the arguments and the strategy to keep an older car in good reliable condition. But it requires a real commitment in money, time, and effort. It also requires that the selected car is already in good shape to begin with, oftentimes it was a new car bought by the original owner, who decides to keep it instead of trading it in. But with all that being said…
I think that most enthusiasts choose old cars because they like the styling and the nostalgic feelings they get by owning and driving them.
I can compare three models of Mustang, a ’70 that I sold about four of five years ago, a 2007 that I bought new, and my ’96 which I bought when it was 12 or 13 years old with 150,000 miles on it.
I had bought the ’07 first, my first car was a ’66 Mustang, but I hadn’t had another since 1975! I was impressed by the retro fastback styling styling, which I found very attractive. And fastbacks were always my favorites and they were always the most expensive models. This is a great car, a Pony coupe with V6, five speed auto, leather, ABS and all comfort and convenience amenities. Plenty of power with 27 mpg on the freeway. The larger rear seat, combined with the folding seat backs made it really practical.
I bought the ’96 because I wanted a V8 convertible. It is also a modern car that includes a modern driveline with ABS, airbags, and all the comfort and convenience features of the ’07. Styling is a subjective thing, initially I didn’t care much for the looks, I preferred the last Fox body cars more. Over time I have come to appreciate the design, and it has a more compact feel than the ’07. I have made a commitment to keeping the car well maintained which has kept it very reliable as the odometer has passed 200,000 miles. I have used this as a daily, but it is also a hobby car that I fuss over.
I wanted a Classic Mustang so I bought my ’70 coupe. This car was in pretty rough shape so I can’t make a fair mechanical comparison though I fixed it up pretty good. I liked the style and the size. The ergonomics were pretty bad compared to the other two.
I found that I couldn’t reach many of the dash controls when I had the shoulder belt on. Ventilation was awful. It was an automatic with big six, drum brakes. Performance was okay, mileage wasn’t (15 mpg) stopping not that good. A higher optioned V8 car would probably have been better, but I couldn’t afford that.
So my conclusion is that the ’96 is a great car, easily usable as a daily. If you consider this model a classic, ( I do) you could be very happy with this model. The ’07, even the V6, is a very good car that looks and drives great and will do anything you need. The loser in this comparison is the ’70. It looked great and I got lots of positive comments when driving it. It was not suited to modern everyday driving. A higher content example, or a resto modded car would have fared better. Driven within it’s limits it was okay, but it wasn’t much fun.
Actually when I answered I was putting up the choice between owning a new 1970 model vs. a 2008 model in 2022. That is how I saw the title. I would actually put up a 1968 model vs. the 2008 model and the 1968 model I would pick would be a 289-2V Mustang coupe. With simple mods one can improve handling immensely, the car gets decent mileage (18 mpg) on regular, is comfortable enough (I have one), and most important is super easy to work on with large parts availability. Put in an adjustable proportioning valve to prevent the rear drums from locking up before the front discs and you are good to go.
I wasn’t thinking about a 52 year old car vs. a 14 year old car. Although my Mustang made it to 1985 it was in bad shape when I bought it but has been trouble free since I rescued the car.
Eh, people had many of the same complaints about whatever car was new in whatever the era was that was being discussed at the time. And they’ll have them again in two decades and look back fondly at the “simple” cars of 2022. 17 million cars in the US annually aren’t all sold due to people “needing” a replacement vehicle.
At one time not too many decades ago nobody understood fuel injection, give me carbs or give me death, not that new fangled stuff etc. Guess what, F.I. tech, once perfected and understood not too many years after becoming widely available, rarely if ever needs fixing or touching for the life of any car.
The metal was too thin. There was too much plastic. Since the 1980s many cars have had various plastic body panels that have proven to be a boon to corrosion resistance and weight savings.
Those great cars of yesteryear, i.e. the 1980s and 1990s that many are touting here, well, back in the 80s and 90s parts of the market were fondly looking back to the 50s and 60s and put off by the then-new technology – ABS, airbags, multi-valve engines, V-Tech, yo! Now these are the simple cars. But not really, it’s just what the owners are used to and have learned to deal with.
Power windows will never work/last. Power door locks will just break. Sunroofs all leak. A/C maintenance is voodoo. These “problems” have been fixed, the vast majority of owners never have to deal with any of those items.
Today’s youth and mechanics can fix all the new stuff too, they just plug in a laptop to help figure it out, can write code, solder ECU chips etc – and have been doing so since the latter 1990s for many cars.
Everybody has a different sense of what looks “good”, just as everyone has a different sense of what they “need” or “want” in a car. The vast majority of the general public/market (99%?) though has zero desire to either get under a car or into the engine bay and just as little desire to need to pay someone else to do so.
Buy what you want, today’s cars are the best they’ve ever been. Some “good” cars can and do easily last a couple of hundred thousand miles without much of anything beyond an occasional oil change. Cars are faster, safer, more economical, cheaper (if comparing apples to apples), and will on a percentage basis last longer with less maintenance and costly repairs than yesteryear’s cars. And tomorrow’s cars will have even less things to go wrong with them while still mostly using utterly conventional braking systems, suspensions, etc that a caveman could repair/replace and not needing much of the other crap that goes wrong. Electric motors last for far longer than engines and transmissions, and screens are a commodity of sorts and can be easily replaced if the need arises/ Odometers used to break regularly in some cars. Batteries are the next big thing to be repaired and have been able to be repaired by many folks already, it’s just that the guy who can repair your electric car’s battery after a quarter million miles probably has no clue how to rebuild a Holley carb. And zero need to do so.
But you can still buy a car (well, truck) with a pushrod engine, body on frame construction, leaf springs and manual HVAC controls if that’s your bag. It too can last basically forever. And sells in the hundreds of thousands every year so repair and replacement parts will be available even longer than forever. But realize, just because it’s simple, doesn’t mean it can’t break either. Last week our 2015 Jeep’s radio took a dive for good. No idea what’s wrong with it, there’s no touch screen, it’s stone age tech. Some functions work, but no sound unless it’s via the phone/bluetooth then every other word sounds and the others remain silent. Replacing it with an aftermarket touch screen unit with CarPlay, which will likely last far longer than the OEM radio did.
Don’t buy the cutting edge of technology from the “unreliable” makes that are out there advancing the state of the art for everyone else, wait a decade or so for it to be perfected and trickle down and the next car you buy will likely be able to outlive all of us.
Or just buy a horse, now there’s a low-maintenance conveyance that looks pretty. /s
^ THIS ^ Jim, is deserving of its own post. Well said, sir, well said.
The biggest gripe I have with new cars is segment decline and shift, which I suppose falls in the design argument, as a V8/RWD guy I’m just not attracted to pickup trucks and SUVs and find Mustangs Corvettes, Challengers and Camaros kind of cliche and gauche (though the Challengers size adds some practicality, and would be my choice if I had to make one). There’s just not a lot of metal from the last 20 years that interests me and what does interest me feels like I have to settle because beggars can’t be choosers.
Project cars argument is a non issue, there will always be project cars as long as people own their own cars anyway, I saw a V8 swapped Tesla on my YouTube feed recently, that says it all. I’ve had an MN12 Cougar as a project car since I was a teenager, compared to a SN95 Mustang it has very little aftermarket support or even normal maintenance support for that matter, but I get by using parts from various cars that happen to fit or fit with some modifications. Part of the fun of a project car is the challenge, having something old and well supported like a A body Chevelle can be fun to make a bulk order of parts on and put it together like a Lego set but it’s not really challenging, to me at least
And since it is modern(as I define it), complete with OBD2 and EFI overhead cams and overdrive and an aftermarket stereo with phone connectivity, I have no qualms about daily driving it, gets the same mileage as a modern pickup and has every convenience I find useful. If I lived in a climate without snow I’d do it year round.
New car buyers are more discerning about metrics due to the periodic expense/investment of new car purchases, these aren’t factors with old cars really, aside from collecting for investment purposes that is. In the real world I’ve never actually been challenged into argument over my choice of car, ever, no talk of depreciation, efficiency, perception, politics, nothing, it’s off the radar where something like a big pickup or EV can be a lightning rod. With old cars most of the time it’s just compliments or talking shop with the people who engage.
Your friend sounds as though he’s married to his El Camino and the love is still there.
Fuel injection/feedback oxygen sensors/OBD2 fundamentally changed DYI owners’ relationships with their cars. Diagnosing and fixing them is relatively easy and cheap for the average Joe. The combination has boon for blue collar citizens who are able to spend considerably less on transportation than previous generations.
The newest car that I own is a 2012 Fit Sport 5 spd manual; I have gotten close to 40 mpg with it on trips. All my other vehicles are considered to fall under the classic spectrum. I performed a front brake power disc conversion on my Charger, and although it’s 50 years old, I enjoy driving it, accepting its’ shortcomings with a smile on my face. I also love surprising people by driving the Fit spiritedly, which also puts a smile on my face; so I guess my “best” seems to be what I’m in at the particular moment! 🙂 BTW: I’m of the opinion that when people rely too much, or solely on “safety nannies” to do what the DRIVER should be doing, their overall competence tends to decline. When ABS was introduced, studies showed that people drove less carefully because “ABS would rescue them!” 🙂
I do think that sometimes people relay too much on the safety of newer cars, as the driver, your job is to do the best you can to drive safety, not the car’s.
Much of this comes down to how you define good or better.
On a presumed objective basis, new cars of course come out better. Safer, more economical, longer lasting, what, smog is up to a 100k warranty now? Which kind of means powertrain. Cleaner, emissions wise and from my readings even after production/recycling they’re still cleaner.
On the other hand, better. Which would you rather drive? In a way I respect new cars, but don’t like them or like driving them. First off, it’s hard to even find a 3 pedal car, let alone a good one now. But it’s the stuff they do, without my asking, or them asking me that drives me crazy. Everything’s climate control. They, the manufacturers, know what will make me comfortable and not deign to even let me play much of a part. Except they don’t have a clue. They ramp up and down blowers like crazy and I want to just set it somewhere. Change which vents air comes out of, because surely, I, the lowly driver can’t be trusted to know what makes me comfortable. Horns that beep if I try to lock or unlock them. Lights that come on, inside and out regardless if I want them to or not, and my gawd, it’s not like I can be trusted with those decisions, I’m only the driver.
Older cars weren’t as good by many measures, but they didn’t make me crazy. New cars do. I’m happier driving an older car. Not to mention I’d rather look at them in general. I guess I want new mechanicals, but with older controls and styling. Oh the curse words I’ve wasted on newer cars, suggesting anatomical impossibilities knowing full well steel and glass doesn’t have such capabilities. Perhaps I’m alone, but the conscious decision to eliminate my choices drives me away. Quickly, at a high rate of speed.
I recently replaced my 2002 Dodge 2500 V10 with a 2021 Ford 250 7.3 V8. Although the Dodge was 20 years old, I never considered it an old truck. Both these trucks were powerful but clumsy beasts. I only use the truck to pull a 35 ft trailer between Nevada & Arkansas a couple times a year.
The Dodge was barely over 100k miles when I got rid of it. It probably had another 150k left. The Ford is likely to stay similarly low mileage. Both trucks were the very bottom trim level. The Dodge still had a manual but the Ford is automatic. Both guzzle fuel at about the same rate. Any power difference is imperceptible. Despite the 19 years age difference, neither truck has much of an edge in comfort. By the slimmest of margins, I actually found the Dodge more comfortable.
So why get rid of the Dodge?
If I only used the truck locally, I would have kept it. No need for the latest and greatest in a work truck. The problem I ran into was parts. As the Dodge aged, I had occasional parts failures. Nothing serious that couldn’t be repaired – if you could find the part. In the last 4 years of ownership, I had 3 failures. The clutch master cylinder, the fuel pump and finally the ECU.
In each case, it was a challenge to find the parts. The clutch master cylinder meant an unplanned one week stay in New Mexico. The fuel pump represented 3 nights in Colorado. The ECU failed at home, but it was perhaps the most challenging part to find. It took 3 weeks to locate a replacement used ECU. Evidently the ECU for that truck is unique to the ’92 V10 w/ a manual shift. I was lucky to find one at all.
That ECU forced me to finally admit that while the Dodge was still quite serviceable, an older vehicle like this was simply not a good choice for interstate travel as any breakdowns could result in a lengthy wait for parts.
I didn’t see that listed as one of the reasons for switching to a newer vehicle, but for me it was the only reason.
A compelling, really well written article. Bravo.
My only car is a 2000 Golf, which I’ve had almost 22 years. I’ve never owned an “older” car per se but as I’ve been a licensed driver for going on 48 years, of course I’ve owned what is probably considered an older car, but at the time it was pretty recent to me…that being said, I’ve only owned 4 cars in that time, if they started out as “new” they progressed to being at least “older” if not actually “old”.
To me, newer cars are a bit of a tradeoff, yes, they last much longer and on a daily basis don’t require as much attention as older cars did, but not all seems like progress to me. It as if the manufacturers are trying to tell me it is a “new driving situation” where I no longer need things like individual lock cylinders in my doors/trunk/hatch, or a spare tire of any sort (space saver even)…and instead lure is better fuel economy (kind of forced by government regulation though) and good performance with all the “tricks” possible by automated controls. But doesn’t seem like progress when automated transmissions don’t seem ready for release, they fail and you go from 35mpg to 0 mpg (can’t go far with bad transmission). Likewise, why have lock cylinders in all doors with keyless lock/unlock? What if the battery dies? I know they keep cylinder in driver’s door, but what about the trunk? I keep my battery booster box back there…need I carry it in the passenger compartment because I can’t get into the trunk if the battery dies (if I have a sedan with no fold down rear seat for access to trunk from inside passenger compartment)? Similarly, what do you do if you get tear in sidewall of tire with no spare, if you’re not near help and have to be self sufficient to get your car going?
Granted, these things don’t happen often, but it seems like they’d like you to believe they don’t happen at all…to me, a car needs to preserve function as well as possible if something fails, have some way you can try to restore the function…I know this isn’t always possible; if your engine or transmission goes south on a trip to a remote area you won’t have any workaround, but within “reason” being able to restore the function of the car trumps offers of latest electronics functions or even better fuel economy. Call it a “tax” or “insurance” or whatever, but I’d rather they put money into that (or better quality components less likely to fail) than into some tick mark on a “features” advertisement that helps the car sell but isn’t really needed for the vehicle to function as a vehicle.
So..that’s really what I like about older vehicles, they may seem primitive in some respects, but retain some of the service features that I think will back me up if I need them in a situation where something relatively minor goes wrong with the vehicle but still allows me to get it back going without requiring me to get help (especially if help is hard to find where it happens). Not really nostalgia, or styling (though I do appreciate large windows to see out of, instead of cameras or other substitute), just what I’m used to in my prior vehicle carried over to the replacement (even if the replacement has features my old one didn’t, please don’t remove something else to put these features in).