Well, I don’t know that for a fact. But these two have been in this driveway ever since we moved here twenty years ago, so I’m willing to wager that’s the case. So if I’m right, he bought the Honda right about 25 years after the (long immobile) ’63VW, and he’s about due for a new car mighty soon. So what will it be?
That’s funny – my ultra-frugal San Francisco aunt drove a Beetle for years until she replaced it with a… 1991 Civic 4-sedan just like that one.
She finally replaced it about two months ago (when the herky-jerky automatic transmission finally died), with a…. 2014 Toyota Corolla. She says it will be her “last car” even though she’s only in her mid-60s. So maybe that answers your question.
As far as I know those are the only three cars she’s ever owned in her whole life. Crazy.
Driving a Corolla for twenty years is not something I want to think about. I do, however, understand that as appliances, they are excellent. My wife would love one and drive it for 25 years.
I can’t express how little this woman cares about transportation. She drove the ’91 Civic with only two functional gears in the transmission for months and it didn’t bother her. Not only does she see them as appliances, but she almost takes pride in how little she cares about cars.
From that perspective, a Corolla (or another Civic) probably is her best bet for a minimal-fuss, two-decade appliance. I mean, she drove a ’60s Beetle for 20+ years…. a 2014 anything is downright luxurious in comparison.
The Honda will run a lot longer than a VW will it might be some time before another is needed
Maybe it’s time to kick it up a notch… albeit a small notch
Bryce, perhaps you have forgotten but most Beetle owner start their conversations by how many engines they have gone through. As long as they are not rusty, you can rebuild a Bug forever. This is not, nor ever has been cheap. I remember as a kid every Tom, Dick and Jaques around claimed to be able to rebuild a Bug for a cheap price, but said jobs rarely lasted a few months. A real re-manufactured engine was going to cost as much as any ‘Murrian engine was, but VW people never batted an eyelash at it. Not to mention they were totally underpowered by the late 1960’s and were freezing in the winter, since the gas heater never worked for long. It actually says a lot for the owners that they were so loyal to their cars. No car has ever had this kind of cult following. Many have tried to recreated it, but the Cult of the Sacred Beetle is a one off event.
I remember when you could buy VW engines out of the Sears catalog
Assuming this catalog is from 1967, $239 is $1677 and $299 is $2089. You could replace any American car’s engine for less than that, and you probably would never have to. By comparison, a Targetmaster 5.7 SBC long block runs $1500. Practically identical.
That is why I never understood the Bug thing. They were not cheap to run in the long run since you had to spend so much keeping them running.
That said, I know people love Bugs, and I respect that. One time, circa 1990 or so, I had a 1966 Bug for a while and strangers raved about it all the time.
True most owners went Japanese and never looked back. VW engines were sold in OZ as reconditioned with 60k warranty if being installed in a Beetle 30k if going into a van they were NOT paragons of durability. 2K was the asking prices over here. VWs were never cheap to run.
I suppose from the point of view of buying them new, they were not a bad value. Buy it for $1699, drive it for three years and sell it for $1000. In that three years, the car would probably not be a lot trouble. Many saw them as a passage of youth as many were first cars for Muffy and or Chip to head off to uni. Upon graduation, the Bug would be traded for something more like a Mustang and Camaro, but Bug will forever be associated with their youths, since it was a cultural icon of the Baby Boomers.
After five or so years, any Bug of the era was a money pit. They were rust buckets, the gas heater cost a fortune to use and fix and the fresh air heater could gas you. The 6V models were simply dangerous in Canadian winters and you couldn’t run the gas heater, wipers at the same time.
I never argue with Bug types because the car means a lot more than transportation to them.
In 1969, my brother bought a ’66 for $900. Drove it for four year, by which time it had close to 100k miles on it. Engine was still hale and hearty. Body and interior looked almost new. I helped him put a clutch in it in a couple of hours, and he sold it for $800, to a girl I knew. She drove it for some years until I lost touch with her.
In 1972, I bought a ’64 for $400 with about 75k miles on it, original engine. Drove it for several years, without any mechanical work except typical wear items. Sold it for $400. It was still in very good condition, perfect compression, no oil consumption. Body still looked really great after a polish of its indestructible German enamel paint.
In 1974, I bought a ’63 with an excellent body/interior for $75, because “it didn’t run”. Brought some points along, popped them in, and it ran like a top. Drove it for a couple of years….sold it eventually, because I needed a van.
VWs back then were the Corollas and Civics of the time. They were built out of the very best quality materials. A properly cared-for original engine would run 100-150k miles, which was very good for back then.
The reason it was worth rebuilding the engines after that was because the rest of the car was still so solid, and still had good resale value. I looked at a few 100k mile 10 year old American cars to consider buying back then, but they were just mostly worn out all over by then, unless they were really pampered.
If one knew just a bit about VWs, they were the cheapest way for kids to drive back then, just like an old Toyota is today. Yes, a lot of folks tried doing their own engine rebuilds, and didn’t know what they were doing. That was a mistake, which I am happy to have avoided.
And yes, some folks lugged their engines in the heat, slow-cooking them, or didn’t adjust the valves, or didn’t change the oil on schedule.
VWs were a lot like the old Fords T and As: they were well built, and they were everywhere, and parts were easy to come by. That made them easy and cheap to run with a bit of knowledge.
Their high quality body and chassis inspired one to take care of it and keep it running, and because you knew someone else would buy it from you for a decent price still. The depreciation on VWs was MUCH lower than typical American cars.
The three my brother and I had gave us superb service at unbeatable total cost/mile. They had their shortcomings, but those were accepted as part of the package. I would not do it differently if I could re-do those purchases.
These comments kill me.
Bad maintence does any car in.
I’ve driven aircooled VW engines longer than 60k. A friend of mine drove a ’62 Beetle with the original 40hp until it hit 215k and it was still running it just barely made it up the small hill to his house.
Another friend of mine drove a ’67 Bus with a 1600 single port for 40k with what turned out to be a rod knock!
I could go on and on.
Simplicity and easy rebuilds were a large part in their success and I’m not going to deny that I have a unnatural love for the stupid things but those who claim they are junkpiles irritate me.
Maybe in a warm climate but not here. The real killer of bugs in Canada was oil dilution caused by the air-cooled engine never warming up in our frigid winters. Bugs were not junkpiles; they were very well built cars. A Bug would last as long as any car of the period. They simply required more maintenance. I can’t remember how many VW flat fours I have heard that needed a valve adjustment, for example.
And you are indeed correct, with religious oil changes and valve adjustments, 100,000 miles is possible. Few, however, make it this far, certainly not in Canada. The really good thing is Bugs are infinitely repairable. There are still loads of parts around but I have seen a lot of engine work in Bugs and before the Vega anyway, it was practically unheard of in big Murrican inline sixes.
That said, I understand people worship Bugs and I sincerely hope they are having fun. I just found them too much of a bother to own. I need heat in the winter.
+1. All you had to do with a Beetle were 2 things. Change the oil and adjust the valves every 3K miles. You care for it, and it cares for you. Drive and care for it as specified in the “Compleat Idiot” manual. Yes, I’m biased but this is based on experience. Plugs and points every 12K miles helped, too. Any Beetle in my experience was far more reliable than the early ’80s Civics featured earlier today. I’m not going to slag on this Civic, but that Beetle has earned due respect.
Very true. A well maintained Beetle was indeed a very reliable car and it was very easy to keep them running as the cars were so simple.
I just never liked them. I know it’s not really fair to be that harsh on the Bug, it’s just by the time I started buying cars, Bugs were getting really old, which makes for plenty of wrenching. By the mid-70’s, the Japanese stuff had the Bug outclassed. The old Japanese stuff was not any harder to work on, need it less and hand honest-to-goodness heaters in them.
Well see that I can buy. I don’t begrudge you or anyone else for VWs not being your thing anymore than I can explain why I like them so much.
Whenever I encounter someone who talks about how terrible their aircooled VW was, 9 times out of 10 when I start asking them about it, it was at least a 10 year old car when they got it and they didn’t maintain it properly. You are hard pressed to find any car from the 50s-70s that would be much different once its old, high mileage and poorly maintained.
Just keep it simple and I think it’s hard to go far wrong. If all I needed was something to drive I think our Nissan Cube would be my last car. Tough to fill it with hay bales and have it remain something you want to drive so need to pull a small trailer. Can’t do that with CVT.
Think most any new choice is a good choice. If it needs to be rugged get a small truck.
Well considering that they are probably getting up there in age, but that they like small and efficient cars, a Kia Soul might be the perfect car for them. It is small and roomy and, most importunity to older folks, one can slide one’s butt straight across into the seat.
That boxy red thing is blocking my view of that bug, my favorite year too!!
My parents generally like their Kia Rondo. Roomy without being too big..
250k on a ’68, third engine. Tune and oil change every 3k, chase down all oil leaks, torque heads and adjust valves, and they are pretty durable. Probably the most maintenance intensive cheap car ever. You can’t treat ’em like a SB Chevy, which is what most people did.
You have to remember that most of the time the Beetle was offered new in the USA/Canada, it was the cheapest car on the market. and people bought the thing in droves not because it was reliable and a good car but because it was cheap to buy. The VW ads of the day which extolled buying the Beetle so you could save money to buy lots of other things(like that commercial about the guy buying a chevy for $3000 and his neighbor buying a bug and a whole host of things) would have liked you to believe otherwise but most folks bought Bugs for the following reasons:
1. It was cheap and a chance to buy a new car with the same money it would cost for a good used car is pleasing to some folks.
2. Bought as a spare car/2nd car for the household(in most of the years the Bug was sold, households could only afford one car)
3. A first car for a teenager(He/she is going to most likely wreck the damn thing in a short time anyway so why spend serious coin on a good car for them?)
Under that context folks were going to abuse the shit out of them
99.999999999% of folks out there in the USA that could afford a more expensive car were not going to buy a Beetle. In short the Beetle was a cheap, crude, unreliable, slow car that had a truly dated design and that really did not get super good gas mileage. In the 1970’s when the first gas crunch came and went and Japanese cars got their A game on, the Bettle was relegated to being a budget car for third world countries.
The statistics of VW buyers then would largely contradict your comment. They were better educated and often had higher incomes than average. True, some bought purely because of the low price point. But for many buyers, the VW represented a conscious decision to buy something very un-Detroit.
Don’t forget that the American compacts could be had for very little more than a Beetle, and by the end of the sixties, for the same price. Both the Rambler American and Maverick trumpeted their $1999 prices, the same as a VW.
The VW Beetle 1200 consistently got 32 mpg, which back in the sixties was untouchable by American cars. No question that by about 1970 or so, the Beetle was getting pretty old and obsolete, which was of course VW’s big mistake, hanging on to it for so long.
The Japanese benefited from a number of things, and one of them was a cheaper currency. When the fixed exchange rate with the European currencies collapsed after 1971 or so, VW had a very difficult time of it.
There is no question that the one single biggest reason the VW became the best selling import in the second half of the 50s was because of its superior quality and reliability. Compared to the competition, it was much better.
Agreed. The VW was like the Mustang in that it straddled multiple social classes. Growing up, my next door neighbor was a tax lawyer whose driveway ranged from GTOs to VWs, with several of each. They were seen as a fun, well built car or a smart second car. A Falcon said “tightwad” but a VW said “intelligent”.
These days, a Yaris is the only thing fit to replace the bug. There’s the outgoing Fit and Mazda2 also, but they’ll be replaced sooner than later.
I predict their next vehicle will be… a Chevy Spark? Yaris, maybe? Versa is my third place candidate. The Honda Fit or Scion iQ would be the favorites, if not for the pricing.
Some might be tempted to go with the Smart Fortwo as their prediction, but I think there is enough sensibility in these car owners to realize what a mistake that would be.