One of the most recurring issues with pretty much all of us at CC is our tendency to…ah…live in the past. Well, that’s largely why we’re here, right? And our memories of how our cars performed, ran, handled and otherwise did their job were created in the context of their times. We most of all remember the specific qualities of our cars that stood out relatively at the time, like a jet-smooth smooth ride, a super powerful high-revving engine, superb handling, infallible reliability, etc., that gave our favored cars real or perceived superiority then. But do we tend to transpose those qualities on them today, even in relative terms? There’s nothing like getting into an older car now, for a reality check, like my recent drives in the ’63 Galaxie or the ’67 Corvette to put things in perspective. I’ll be writing up my drive in the ‘Vette in more detail soon. Here’s an example from one of our recent COALs:
I started thinking about this a couple of weeks ago, when rplaut wrote the following about his 280Z (and I sincerely hope he doesn’t mind me using his words as an example, but it so well illustrates what we undoubtedly all do here):
Thinking now about how the 1978 Z handled compared to my current 1999 NB Miata, I believe the Z was pure power and thrust with better straight line performance; the engine seemed un-endingly strong.
Well, the 280Z’s 2.8 L six’s 145 or 149 hp peaked at 5600 rpm. The NB Miata’s BP-4W 1.8 L four makes its 140 hp at 6500 rpm. There’s no doubt that the Miata’s engine is substantially higher revving. And there’s also no doubt that the Miata would run circles around (or straight lines from) the 280Z. The NB Miata’s average 0-60 time is 7.5 seconds; the significantly heavier 280Z’s is 9.3 seconds.
The point is that comparing cars from our memories to cars in the present is a very real challenge. Do we remember our favorite cars through rose colored glasses? It’s certainly something I struggle with. How about you?
Yes I think a lot of you have rose tinted glasses. I remember that my 1969 GTO was a fun car, but I also remember that handling was not that great. There was too much weight on the front wheels and not enough on the rear. My 1971 Riviera was much better balanced.
That said, I think in terms of handling my 2013 ATS was as good as I have had, except perhaps for the 1984 Corvette. My 2014 CTS is nearly as good as the ATS with a softer ride (mag shocks). I really never liked the floaty ride that most of GM’s cars had in the “good old days”.
What are you trying to do, Paul? Bring objectivity to this blog? You might as well shut it down.
+1
They were rose once, but are becoming pink-ish.
My Mom’s Valiant wagon was perfect everyday transport in its day. When I got a really nice one in the early aughts, I found the carburetion balky, the cabin noisy and the inputs slow. I remembered the cool thing about wagons was rolling down the rear window, Breezeway style, to let the air rush in. When I tried that on my collector Valiant, I got a snootfull of exhaust that smelled of an over-rich mixture.
If you cut your teeth on ’80s or newer era cars, the disparity is much less, of course. For all we complain about computerization, it makes our cars run soooo much better.
So, yeah, it’s a struggle. But the aesthetics seem to make it all worthwhile.
I remember my air cooled VW’s being slow and unstable in cross winds.
My ’75 Rabbit seemed like a rocket ship in comparison. At an Orange County Bug in in the ’70’s. it’s 17.1 1 /4 mile time was considered very good for a 4 cylinder back in the day. Today this would be considered so slow as to be unsafe.
At age 14 to me our 390 ’62 Monterey seemed really fast. As did grandfathers ’65 389 Bonneville convertible. Would like to try both again today. My ’04 Titan at around 15.5 1/4 mile and 7.1 0-60 is faster than either of those would have been. And today this is considered slow for a full size pickup.
The ’86 Jetta I still drive around town is probably slower then just about any new car you can get today, I’ve been driving it for 25 years so no rose colored glassed here. Just prescription sunglasses or progressive lens clear glasses. The 300k+ miles on original drivetrain needs no rose colored glasses though.
The ’65 and ’70 C10 (had the ’70 from ’76 to ’06) strippers were no fun to drive back in the day, especially around town. Now that I’m older and spoiled by the Titan they would probably feel even less pleasant to drive today.
Would love to have all past cars waiting for me to give them a drive today.
You’re right, the Beetle was a real handful in windy situations. I’ll never forget the drive out to Stockton on Christmas break in 1972.
In 1977, the salesman I knew at the local VW store threw me the keys to a new fuel injected Miami Blue Rabbit 3 door, and off I went up into the hills alone. It was a beautiful day, with the sunroof open, and that car ran like a scalded cat up roads that had my Super Beetle gasping for breath. I never was able to look at the VW dealer the same way after that drive, but I still miss the Beetle.
The split window ’65 and ’66 Bus that I owned were the ones that were really scary in crosswinds, especially going through the desert in a Santa Ana windstorm.
Even new cars can be a handful in crosswinds. My 2013 Versa sedan was very susceptible to them, I felt like I was flying a Piper Cub in windy Wyoming and Colorado two summers ago with how much it was moving around. I gave up after hours of trying to keep my usual fussily precise track and just kept it between the yellow and white lines after that. It’s a common complaint on the Versa internet forum.
The Quest/Villager I learned to drive in was scary in crosswinds too, my Mom wouldn’t take it on highways on windy days
I think it’s all about being relative. Think about the average automotive landscape the 280z existed and thrived in – slow pondering comfy land barges. Now think about the Miata against today’s landscape – average run of the mill cars now are much more dynamic performers(and have been for a while). True, there’s always the inherent weight advantage of a small roadster bodied sports car, as well as the superiority of RWD, but the gap has far narrowed from where it was in the 70s, and I’d argue that’s been the case for the Miata for the last decade or so. It seems like most prospective new car buyers flock to them for being fun(personality) convertibles first, and stat chasing auto-x cone carvers far second(or third or forth or eleventh), the Miata really only picked up the autocross crowd after they became bargain used cars from their hair dresser previous owners. The Z captured that more enthusiast driven market from the start by all accounts(I was born about 20 years to late, so I could be wrong wrong), and similarly I’d say a more recent car trulycomparable to the Z is the Toyota 86/BRZ, but as we’ve seen those were quick squirts sales wise for a very small(and shrinking) market.
And on that last point, I think where the rose tinted glasses argument truly fails is there was an ABUNDANCE of these enthusiasts type cars then, whilenow there’s really only 2 choices for sports cars, and 3 choices for muscle/pony cars. The rest are familymobiles, of which there was no shortage of, then and now. Regardless of how much better the new cars perform than the old(again, what was the yardstick back then?), there were more cars to be enthusiastic about and more people to share that enthusiasm with. It’s almost taboo to be into cars today, and despite cars being better than ever dynamically, your average commuter is no more interested in nailing the gas at stoplights on their their new V6 Camry than there were back in the day with their Electra 225.
I think most who use the rose tinted glasses idiom fail to realize they’re wearing their own when looking at the present. Without yardsticks/benchmarks to put things into perspective, 50 years from now people will be waxing poetic about how those cars from the 2010s needed so much maintenance, having to change oil and replace tires(jetsons future!), all while exerting so much energy manually operating those laborious two pedals and a steering wheel!
Lots of 240/260/280Z’s were bought as boulevard cruisers. The assistant dean of students at my college had a 240 with automatic and never drove it in anything regarding a sporting fashion.
If the Japanese accomplished anything, it was making sports cars so reliable that they sold to people who would never drive them as sports cars.
Look back a few weeks on this site to the reprint of that Rodentrack sports car comparison from the 1970’s. Only Italian and English, not exactly the pinnacles of reliability. The Z was not accepted as a “real” sports car back then.
Your two choices for sports cars are the Miata and the 370Z? There’s the Corvette and assorted importations from Europe, too 🙂
I think Corvette crossed the line dividing sports car and budget supercar some time ago. I was actually thinking of the Miata and 86/BR-Z. I forgot Nissan even was making a Z, I haven’t seen one in ages.
Perhaps if I had a 280Z, I’d be nostalgic about it, too.
I don’t want to live in the past, but there are some things left behind I wouldn’t mind visiting again. Vintage bicycles and cars. I’d love to drive some of the cars I used to own, to hear, see, and feel the operation of the car. But I wouldn’t want them for daily transportation. New cars drive so much better; with improved ride, cornering power, braking, reliability, fuel mileage and acceleration. Now if I just could figure out how to operate all the little buttons for the HVAC and infotainment systems. Visibility would be nice, too.
Thinking about this more, I really wish I could drive a US market 1975 Standard VW Beetle (model 110). A minimalist car even for a Beetle, with fuel injection.
Heh- as a car hoarder I still have just about all my old cars. If I need any refreshers about anything about them, all I have to do is go look at ’em or even take the one in question for a spin- if it’s a working one.
As I recall, the first vehicle I got to drive on the street all by myself was my Grandpa Owen’s ’53 5-window Chevy pickup. My dad had recently died, and the principal culprit (aside from his own self) was a giant stash of empty whiskey bottles that took I think three trips to the dump for just them. Of course there were other things too, but of course it’s the bottles I remember, along with how very nice that truck was to drive. The steering was tighter and yet easier than that of the old Fords Dad had taught me on, and the brakes and handling were both light and pleasant. How good to have something to give me pleasure at such a sad time.
And then twenty-some years later a girlfriend bought a near-identical truck, fully refurbished and ready to go. I begged to drive it, told her why, and she handed me the keys. The steering was appalling, with no sense of direction; the brakes were heavy and not particularly strong, and the handling was downright wayward. I was later told by several Chevy guys that this was considered to be an unusually nice example …
rlplaut said the Z “seemed” unendingly strong, and it probably did. It might feel that way today, even against the Miata, and sometimes in a car “feel” is what matters. I drove down some great country roads today in my wheezy Mazda 2 and it felt quick, despite several sportsbikes passing me like I was standing still.
I don’t think I look at previous cars with rose-tinted glasses – I haven’t forgotten their flaws – but I reckon if I drove my old Beetles today I’d be shocked by just how slow they were. Similarly, when I was a teenager I drove a 1.8 Escort, which I thought was fast and my friends thought it quite extravagant. I have to assume it would feel decidedly unremarkable today. I do remember that the ride quality wasn’t great.
I have detected a trend amongst some on this site to have a high opinion of cars they remember fondly from their youth (whether they owned/drove one or not) and to pour vitriol on certain cars they do not. I certainly look at old family cars from my early childhood with undue fondness, but I never drove those, and they’re old and rare enough now that I’d probably love to drive them, if only briefly. (I’m thinking of a Citroen Ami, Renault 5 and Fiat 126)
Heh- as a car hoarder I still have just about all my old cars. If I need any refreshers about anything about them, all I have to do is go look at ’em or even take the one in question for a spin- if it’s a working one.
That I find ironic about the argument as well. Usually when one looks back at something with rose tinted glasses on it’s at something intangible, looking back on friendships, relationships, social attitudes, or even your health and well being, while overlooking the perils and turbulance that may have existed within them.
When we’re talking about tangible goods however, while personal memory may have glossed over some traits from past experience, they’re entirely possible to be revisited in the present. And if you like something about this tangible thing from the past better you’re experiencing now in the present, how on earth can I be looking naively at the rosy past?
There’s no doubt we wear rose colored specs here, but that’s pretty much the whole idea, as stated in the original post. There’s no doubt that anything built in the last 10 years is head and shoulders above almost anything comparable (a relative, but still operative term) to it today. I started driving in 1984. The cars I drove then (all 3 years old or less for the most part) couldn’t hold a candle to their counterparts from even 10 years later. In my college years I whimsically bought a couple of mid-70’s MG’s, which I drove daily in a weirdly 80’s version of counter-culturalism (?). I thought them to be superb drivers and handlers, and couldn’t imagine why I’d ever need anything more refined. They were clearly NOT practical in any sense of the word, and there’s little doubt that I’d be terrified to hop on the interstate in one of those today, despite regularly making 8hour+ trips in them at the time. My 1985 Conquest (Starion) was the Cat’s Meow (ok, I’m not THAT old, but you get the point) in the late 80’s, but today its technology and road manners, while still probably on the high side of adequate, could be bested by a mid-grade Hyundai. The rose colored glasses and the nostalgia trips we’re all prone to here are more products of the “personalities” of our cars back then, requiring us to connect with them in ways that just aren’t necessary with today’s technology. Having to coax a dual-carbed, already obsolete and probably poorly tuned British sportscar with a manual choke into starting at 6AM on a -10 degree January morning tends to inspire a certain “oneness of man and machine”, which of course we remember fondly. The truth is we remember it fondly because it was such a friggin’ feat to actually pull off most of the time that we HAD to celebrate it, lest we jinx it for tomorrow.
I have the advantage of having had a shitty car that was already old as my first car (I started driving in late 1997. The car was a 1986 Chrysler LeBaron GTS with the base 2.5 and an automatic that was so unreliable my parents shot video of it rolling 100,000 because no one in the family thought it would ever make it.). Of the next four cars I had, the newest amongst them was only eight years old with 99,000 miles when I got it. I saw one of them roll 200,000 miles within four months of getting it. One of them came with a transmission issue free with my purchase.
So, I generally think of old cars as slow unreliable POS by default. My experiences with my great-aunt’s 1977 Thunderbird and a one-family 1978 Lincoln Continental haven’t changed that perception. I love them, and I love old cars generally. I smile every time I drive the Lincoln or the ‘Bird, and I genuinely enjoy both of them. But if I’m meant to be somewhere on time, it’s the 2014 I drive (it being a Fiesta ST helps dispel any rose-coloring, too, although I imagine 20 years from now I’ll be wearing the rose-colored glasses for it!).
I loved my first car, a ’75 Pinto, beyond all reason. I felt like it had good power and handled well. I’ve often thought about buying another just for fun.
But when I think about it objectively … its brakes sucked — not power. And it had some niggling cooling issue. And the floorpan was rusted; two of the three the front passenger seat bolts were missing because of rustthrough. There’s no way I’d put up with any of that today.
I drive the Pinto’s successor’s successor, the Ford Focus. I like it less than I liked the Pinto, but it is objectively a better car in every way.
I think the rose-colored glasses comes from memories of our youth and what we did IN and WITH those cars. It was not about how good the cars were. I remember driving mom’s slant six Aspen with all of it’s 85 hp barely able to hit 75 mph on the interstate, and having a lot of fun doing it. Now when my son complains that his 10 yr old 4 cyl Fusion is underpowered, I kindly remind him that the car I learned to drive in weighed 1000 lbs more, had 1/2 the power and about the same interior room.
For me, the biggest thing about frankly anything older, is the higher quality of construction.
The older cars, regardless of marque or price-point used stronger materials, less plastics and were across the board more robust.
Certainly advances in technology make a NEW, new car often better performing, more reliable, fuel efficient, etc. but a OLD, new car is a horror, they just don’t last.
Styling was another department the old rides excelled in weather it be outrageously futuristic, aviation inspired, or derived from classical elements of visual refinement and elegance, there seemed more a realization of personal stylistic visions, then the computer generated “cartoon cars” that now grace, (ahem, cough , cough) the roads.
Older is better, no rose colored glasses needed, or as they say, “glasses?, I don’t need no stinkin’ glasses”
Styling is completely subjective. There are “beautiful” and “ugly” cars in every era.
What made styling so interesting on old cars was how unpredectable and short lived it could be. One year a model could look fighter jet inspired, the next it could look like a futuristic space pod, and there were no aero and safety dictated absolutes to the designs. There are some great current designs and some ugly ones too, the big divide is they stick around unchanged for 4-6 years on average, and because they’re so much more reliable than they used to be you’re pretty much garunteed they’ll remain common sites for another 10+ years. I think that point in particular is a big part of why people are more disinfranchised with car design since the 90s.
Old cars (my memory is of new cars in the 70s) melted like ice cream cones as soon as you bought them. Rust, sun damaged paint, worn out transmissions, flapping trim, smoking exhausts. When I grew up, I watched a new Duster completely rot into a unreliable rust heap sitting next to a gas station in seven years. My first car was a six year old Chevy, and it was a turd, down to the sagging doors. Today, I own two ten-year-old cars that drive perfectly, start every time, and look fine.
“The older cars, regardless of marque or price-point used stronger materials, less plastics and were across the board more robust.”
The parts you see were “robust” but the chassis underneath was not. Cars are immensely stronger now than they were. My bargain basement Rio has nary a rattle or squeak.
I’d argue a lot of the problems with rattles and squeaks came from the wide scale adoption of plastics for interior parts. My friend has a few 60s Ford products, hardly the most pristine examples as well, and while they aren’t rattle or squeak free by any means they aren’t as bad as most 90s cars/trucks I’ve ridden in, which I’d describe as sounding like a domino effect of noises, with one plastic component rubbing the next as the chassis flexes. The old stuff I’d characterize as more of a solid squeak or rattle, as it’s very easy to pinpoint the exact point of origin(whether it’s solvable or not lol).
That’s not to say anything in praise of the inner structure however. There was much more reliance on the THICK heavy exterior panels providing the cars rigidity and safety, which was unpredectable model for model – not to get off on a tangent but this is the reason I object to the 60 Impala vs late model Malibu crash, which christened ALL classic cars as deathtraps in the minds of many despite being a notoriously not great chassis design even for the era – Be that as it may however, thicker exterior steel does make older cars desirable for legitimate reasons for someone interested in keeping one for a long time, with the lesser structural rigidity being a tradeoff. Minor dings and dents aren’t really a problem, and rust takes a good bit longer to do irreparable damage, which, yes, is far far less of an issue today with galvanized steel, but it still does happen, especially if the car has been repaired from a collision, compromising the factory anti-corrosion coating/plating. And with the various trim pieces, knobs, switchgear and whatnot, that stuff is all individually restorable when it’s metal. Not so on modern cars with plastic and often rubber parts, you’re SOL when plastic tabs crack off your dash bezel and the rubber exterior trim dryrots. It’s very frustrating and expensive trying to keep a 90s era car “mint”, and that’s only proliferated more modern cars since
“When we view things through rose colored glasses, all of the red flags just seem like flags”- Wanda Pierce, Bojack Horseman (a TV favorite of mine)
Good quote
Rose colored glasses… Most definitely. My first experience with this website was coming across it when thinking about my first car, the Brougham-tastic ’73 LTD Coupe: Fond Fond Memories indeed… Then I read this article from JPC…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/curbside-classic-1973-ford-ltd-bring-on-the-bloat/
…as much of a slap in the face of reality as that article was, it certainly put the ‘Rose Colored Glasses’ thing into perspective. Fortunately, that first article I read here did not turn me off to this site despite its negative review, and I’ve learned so much from coming here. I love it here and visit every day!
Now having said all that, a little statistical perspective that sorta proves the Rose Colored Glasses Theory:
Let’s consider 3 cars, two COAL(s) for me, plus a car I’d love to have. I’ll cite one stat that I know off the top of my head: 0-60 times. ALL of the cars below do it in 6.5 seconds according to the info I have read online (if it can be trusted, of course).
2007 Mustang V6 Premium – My Current Ride.
1997 Grand Prix GTP Coupe – The car that came before it.
1969 Mustang Boss 429 – The Iconic Monster Muscle Car.
My current Mustang does 0 to 60 in 6.5 with a normally aspirated 4.0L V6. It is also THE SLOWEST of all of the S-197 Mustangs.
My GP-GTP needed a BLOWER (the 3800 Supercharged Series II V6 from GM) to do the same sprint. (Granted, a Grand Prix is a wee bit heavier than a Mustang.)
And one of my dream cars: A HUGE V8 to make it to 60 mph in the same time frame.
But the latter sounds the coolest of them all….
http://www.nbc.com/jay-lenos-garage/video/1969-ford-mustang-boss-429/3054003
So yeah, I’d say we look at our old favorites with rose colored glasses, but fond memories are half the fun.
it’s somewhat understandable, as older cars often gave a more visceral experience in general.
i own both a 55hp subaru domingo and a 95hp renault 5, and while both might be “slow” by modern standards they sure feel fast!
modern cars are way better with passangers on board though.
so comfortable, and with suspension that can cope with a full car without bottoming out!
I think I have no rose colored illusions about the 1950 Buick Riviera, the 1953 Packard Clipper, the 1953 Chrysler convertible, or the 1957 Oldsmobile 88. All were ponderous and floaty and needed regular adjustments and tune ups. None had power anything and parking was a chore even with those huge steering wheels.
As a young man I may have been influenced by the torque of the 1961 Ventura’s 389 but now I see it as just a pretty old car that I would not want to drive regularly. Well, maybe once or twice in a while, on a nice cool day.
(no a/c).
The 1967 OHC Tempest was just a Pontiac stripper/grocery getter with a 2 speed automatic. It did its job unobtrusively. It was OK. I would not want another.
The 1971 Duster was poorly put together and the 3 speed floor shift wasn’t even synchronized in first. When wet, it had no brakes.
All of the above had drum brakes, needed tune ups every few thousand miles and were finicky getting going in cold weather. None had a/c.
The 1972 Chevy was better than all of the above, but it leaked water, didn’t like cold starts, and the A/C often needed to be refilled.
The 1978 280Z was fuel injected, had disks all around, and a fully synchronized 5 speed manual; all revelations to me that represented a major jump forward in technology and driving pleasure. It rusted away in 4 years.
The 1982 Accord was just damn perfect. A little small and maybe a little under powered, but even perfection isn’t always perfect.
The rest of the cars were 1990 modes and up; they were all good, at least for the first 5 years. Tune ups were up into the 100,000 mile mark and the suspensions were marvelous designs of both comfort and handling. I never had to replace an exhaust system because – stainless steel.
No rose colored glasses here.
While regaining my youthful vigor would be nice, nothing can turn time back to what we think were more innocent times. And they really weren’t all that innocent.
However, I wouldn’t mind driving JPCavanaugh’s 1963 Galaxy 500 for a bit. Every once in a while its good to know what was, what is, and why we have nostalgia. Maybe JP could rent it out as a “Reality Check” mental refresh for Rose Colored Glasses wearers everywhere.
Besides, I never drove a car with overdrive (Mopar’s Prestomatic doesn’t count).
Oops, time for my Ovaltine.
Note: Rose colored glasses played a big part in “The Fantasticks”:
My 1970 Challenger R/T, 383 4spd, was one of the coolest and best looking cars I ever owned. It was also possibly the worst, trouble-prone I owned as well. In the 1 year I owned it, I think I spent more time under the hood than driving it. When I decided to go back to college, it had to go and I sold it at a loss. I still miss the image of it.
Ive got two cars in my driveway one is a 90hp 98 model hatch from Citroen that rides nicely and steers brilliantly its reliable hady in town and extremely competent on highways, the other is from Rootes group in 1959 it was the new improved 3a model released for 1960 its noisy and slow compared to my Citroen however on the road it easily keeps up with modern traffic despite having only 50+ hp which surprises pilots of some modern cars its fun to drive handles ok for what it is and gets the tail out quite easily in the wet, I had a 3b 61 version of the same car same colour almost the same powertrain when I was 18 that was a fun car to drive too fast too though the first one was in far worse condition I remember it very well, Over 100 old bombs have been in my owner ship since some good, some absolute junk its sometimes hard to accurately remember them all.
I had a ’62 Valiant station wagon, 170 6, Torqueflite, dealer-installed A/C. It was a slug. The engine was just plain too small, and it was given to overheating when I used the A/C.
My 1970 Torino Brougham was the first nice car I had. I liked it enough that I drove it for five years. Base 302 V-8, automatic, power steering & brakes, factory A/C. It all worked pretty well; engine was reliable, transmission was smooth, A/C was plenty cold, and it didn’t make the engine overheat. The steering, though, would get a bit “sticky” on a trip, seeming to lag just a bit. The brakes were hair-trigger sensitive until I got used to them. The A/C compressor rumbled like crazy.
Next up was a 1977 Honda Accord, bought used. What eventually did this one in was burning oil. But its handling was a revelation to me, and the CVCC engine always ran well.
A base 1984 Mazda 626 followed; it was pretty reliable, reasonably comfortable, nice 5-speed stick, but ridiculously heavy steering.
I’ve shared some of the saga of our 1993 Mercury Sable, a pleasant bigger car afflicted with gremlins and ultimately a suicidal engine. That led to a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid, a mostly solid car whose drive train seemed to be still in beta testing–a CVT that got periodically cranky, some kind of software glitch that would sometimes briefly kill the engine in traffic, etc. But the body was solid, and the handling great.
That brings me to our current car, a 2009 Camry Hybrid that, while a bit of a dull driving experience, has been the most reliable car we’ve ever had. Handling is unexciting, but more than competent. The hybrid drive system simply goes, without the slightest complaint or unexpected behavior. The creature comforts all work flawlessly. The seats are comfortable.
At this point I wonder how that old Torino would seem to me now. I really liked it then, and it was my favorite of the old cars in my past, but there’s been a lot of water under the bridge since I had it in the late ’70s. I don’t think it could hold a candle to our Camry now.
No, I don’t have rose-coloured glasses when it comes to the cars I’ve owned. Started driving in ’90 and my first several cars were AMC Concords. I really liked them, but looking back it’s easy to see they were junk. The K-cars I had afterwards were only a little bit better, and the GMs and Fords from the ’80s were also not great ( though the rusty ’87 Taurus wagon I had ran well and was comfy). The ’87 VW Jetta I had was complete junk. I’ve had better luck with newer cars, the ’96 Escort was very good and I’ve had success with both Focus wagons I have owned.
I think most cars built since the mid-90s are much better quality and durability wise than what came before.
Yeah, except the Vega.
Definitely yes.
My ’89 Mustang was overall a very good car. Then I remember the complete lack of power from the 2.3 engine mated to an automatic, how the a/c killed acceleration, and the rear end that was making all kinds of noise.
My ’96 Thunderbird was great. Then I remember the a/c being inadequately charged from the factory and it’s appetite for O2 sensors.
I knew the ’01 Taurus was a POS when I had it.
The ’86 Gran Fury, the ’86 Crown Vic, the ’01 Crown Vic, and the ’87 Dodge Ram 250 were all well used when I got them, so perhaps my expectations weren’t that great.
The ’63 Galaxie is a reminder of how things have changed. It is also a prime example of it’s time.
On some days I have the rose colored glasses. I suppose my remembering the faults of my cars shows I do take them off on occasion.
It’s all relative and totally depends on what your automotive yardstick is.
I’m not very old and I haven’t even been driving for 10 years yet, but growing up my dad never purchased anything costing more than $2000-$2500 (maximum) for our family cars, so for the first year or two I had my license I never really drove any vehicle with less than 150k miles or newer than 15+ years old. When I got my first car, a 1990 Grand Marquis with plush seats and ultra-soft suspension, it seemed oh-so-luxurious compared to his rusty uncomfortable Corolla with worn shocks. (the Mercury probably didn’t have new shocks either, in retrospect, but they were so much more absorbent) I had nothing else to compare that old car to – let alone anything even close to new or actually luxurious! Of course it seemed really nice!
Over the years I built up more money, bought newer and newer cars and finally a brand new car a couple years ago. Between test driving cars, working as a lot porter in a new car dealership, and driving friends/family cars, I’ve now experienced 150+ different models anywhere between brand new and forty years old, compared to maybe five worn out older cars back when I was 17 and sold that Grand Marquis.
Sometimes I wonder if that car was really as smooth, quiet and comfortable as I remember it, but I’m frankly afraid to go find another and drive it… because I just know it will shatter my positive recollection. After experiencing brand new luxury cars and SUVs I can’t help but think it would be a huge disappointment in a lot of ways, and I want to preserve my glowing memories of it because, well, you only have one first car. It’s easier to just remember the smooth striaght-line ride and conveniently forget about the clunky AOD automatic, horrendous steering feel, dump-truck understeer, oil-leaking V8, and chintzy plastic interior.
As usual ;
.
Lots of good stories about vehicles newer than anything I own .
.
I have _ZERO_ illusions about how much better new vehicles are than the older ones yet I still prefer to drive only oldies , so much so that I live in a place where the rust issue isn’t for the most part , allowing me to foolishly daily drive a 32 year old 408,000 + mile beater and across America in it when I wish , none are restored .
.
My 1984 Mercedes Diesel Sports Coupe has mostly 1940’s technology yet it gets along just fine and I’m told is faster than it should be ~ I think it’s a slow and ponderous thing .
.
That’s my newest vehicle .
.
-Nate
I’m with you Nate. Apart from a 2003 Golf shared with a girlfriend, all my cars have been pre83. Don’t need a car, so I’m in a position where driving is mostly a pleasure, and driving an old car is waaaaaaaaaay nicer than a new one. But new cars are way better pieces of machinery than the old, that’s the price of progress.
Can’t beat the music from before the 1980s, but that doesn’t mean I can’t go ballistic on the dancefloor to some EDM.
The thing for me is this; is a 2016 Aston Martin really 20 times greater than my mum’s 2007 Corolla? Nope, but the price differential is.
I don’t know.
Some of my older cars have been pretty great, and I have owned them when they where about 25-35 years old.
My Riviera from 1967 is probably the best car I’ve ever owned (15 years now)in terms of reliability and durability. Some repair the last two years, but the car is nearly 50 years old and nearly 200.000 miles on the odometer. A quiet nice riding car with ok handling.
1977 Riviera, reliability and durability as well, but also quietness, ride comfort, more interior space and a lazy 350 Buick engine.
1977 Coupe DeVille, 260.000 miles, same as the Buicks, but a little disapointment in quietness and ride quality compared with the Buick I think. But the 425 gave a lot more power than the 77 Buick, and drank a lot mor gas.
1976 Mark IV, 28.000 miles, so quiet and comfortable that you could fall a sleep when you drove it over distances. Thirsty as hell, 14-15 MPG when highway driving, but the 460 was smooth and nice. The car was very nice, with power moonroof and a lot of other options. Handling? Not so much, more like a waterbed. The B/C -bodys from 1977-> was way better.
1989 Chevrolet Blazer S-10 4,3. A little nightmare, a lot of trouble, the rear axle had to be overhauled, som major rust on the body, and thirsty. A lot of squeeks and rattles. Harsh ride and not very quiet this 2-door.
1994 Blazer S-10. Much more reliable then the 89, little trouble, and the ride was a bit better and a bit more quiet. The engine was smoother than the 89.
1989 Caprice Brougham 305 TBi. Smooth, durable, reliable, quiet and good ride, a little harsh with the F41 option. A great car for daily driving actually. 170.000 miles.
1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee, my current daily driver. 4.0 , noisy but adequate power, durable and reliable, 210.000 miles. Had to overhaul the rear axle because of water in the axle house for some years. Som squeeks and rattles, but ok ride and quietness on smooth roads. The car is much better off road and in deep snow than the Blazer S-10s. A fine car that you can use to everything. Suprisingly good mileage on the highway about 22-24 MPG, but around town it’s more like 12-15 MPG.
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe 5,3. A good daily driver, but some repairs like trans and heads (due to LPG), but ok ride quality and quietness for a SUV.
Glasses or not, some of my cars is older “luxury” cars in good condition. And for my driving some of them have been and still is great for my use.
I am sure that the glasses are firmly on my head. I fondly remember the 59 Plymouth Fury I had in 1979-80. The car’s driving position fit me perfectly and it drove like a modern car. I would love to drive one now to see how the yardstick has changed. I do remember the constant niggling little things I had to fix (or live with) that have not bothered me in a modern car.
I remember my mother’s 74 Luxury LeMans as being a wicked-good handler. And the 63 Cadillac was blazing fast. Both are memories that would likely be shattered by driving one now.
Ohhhhh, yes. The perfect ol’ wonderful ol’ flawles ol’ good ol’ days when cars were affordable, solid and durable, dependable, and built to last. Not!
How do we define “affordable”? Do we mean affordable to buy? Yes, it takes more dollars to buy a car now than it did in 1963, but everything else costs more dollars, too, and we get more dollars in our paychecks. And vehicle ownership per capita is at an all-time high in North America and round the world; if cars were truly impossible to afford, we’d have seen larger and larger chunks of our society unable to buy and drive them, and the data don’t show that, they show the opposite. For reference, a new 1964 Valiant V200 with 225, automatic, and a few options cost about $2600. That’s roughly $20,000 in today’s dollars. Take a look around; there are a lot of cars available new in that price range.
Do we mean affordable to run? In real terms (adjusted for inflation), the price of gasoline hasn’t risen anywhere near as sharply as it feels like it has in numerical terms. A gallon of regular cost around 29¢ in 1966. If we adjust that price for inflation, it’s $2.14 in 2015 dollars. I filled up yesterday for $2.80/gallon (would’ve been $2.70/gallon if I’d used cash), so yes, gas costs more now for various reasons, some of which could’ve been avoided and others of which could not, but not a whole giant whackload more. In the first oil shock of 1973, a gallon of regular went to 60¢; that’s $3.23 in 2015 dollars, so we’ve been here before. But today’s gasoline is objectively far superior in most ways to the dirty crap we could get in the ’60s and ’70s. And for any given level of size, power, and performance, today’s cars go much farther on a gallon of gas.
Affordable to maintain? Everything lasts longer today. Tires, belts, hoses, oil changes, spark plugs, coolant, transmission fluid, chassis lubrication…you name it, it doesn’t have to be done as often on today’s cars than yesterday’s. Prices are pretty constant; a good BFGoodrich tire that costs me $100 today would’ve cost under $14 in 1966…but I get three or four times the life out of today’s tire, and better fuel mileage as well due to lower rolling resistance, and much safer handling and much greater puncture resistance. Good quality basic spark plugs that cost 70¢ apiece in 1966 would cost over $5/ea in 2015 dollars…nope, a good quality basic spark plug can be had today for about $2, and it will last much longer not only due to better materials and construction in the plug itself, but also due to today’s much cleaner-burning gasoline.
Solid and durable? Like how? Cars that “held up well in a crash” transferred all the crash energy to the occupants, who got pulped like hamsters in a blender. Today’s cars do a [i]vastly[i] better job of protecting their occupants in all kinds of crashes.
So what else could we mean by “solid and durable”? 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.
Dependable? Nope. 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. That’s no longer the case. Overwhelmingly the odds are that the car will start and won’t break down.
Of course, there’s the related issue of repairability. Today’s cars are all thoroughly computerized, and this includes every aspect of the engine except the purely mechanical core reciprocating and rotating movement of internal parts. Fuel delivery, induction, ignition and timing are all continuously monitored and manipulated by computers via sensors, transducers and actuators. An oldie’s “engine management system” is based wholly on nothing more than gross physics of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical. Spark advance is a product of the centripetal force generated by a pair of flyweights of a specific mass, pivoted at one and and pinned to a cam at the other, counterbalanced by calibrated springs that allow the weights to move outward and the cam to counterrotate at a calibrated rate as the shaft to which they are mounted spins at one-half engine speed. Cold-engine enrichment is controlled by a coiled length of laminated flat metal strip. The one side is of a kind of metal that expands relatively fast and much when heated, the other side expands relatively slow and little when heated. Since the two sides are
bonded together—a bimetallic strip, it’s called—the strip bends in response to temperature change. Coiled up, the outer end of the strip rotates relative to the inner end of the strip, and that rotation is what moves the choke plate.
You can stand there and watch these mechanisms operate, and if something isn’t working the way it should, and you know how it should, you can tweak it to do what you want. It is frequently unbelievable to those who’ve never known non-computerized cars that they start and run at all, let alone reliably. In proper repair, they do. I’ve no real grudge against well-implemented computer controls (badly-implemented ones are just as aggravating as anything else crappily done); they’ve brought us improved efficiency and reduced exhaust toxicity, and from that standpoint are very much worth having.
They’ve made it less possible but also less necessary to poke around under the hood. They’ve made repairs more costly, but less frequent…wait a minute, is that true? No, probably not. These days you can plug a scan tool into a car and the car tells you “where it hurts” in very specific detail. That saves a whole lot of diagnostic time and futility.
From the standpoint of Mr. or Mrs. average driver, today’s way is better, because there’s less hassle involved, less often and more predictably. Think about it…how often do you see a dead car by the side of the road today vs. 25 or 35 years ago? Why do you think service stations have all been replaced by gas stations with convenience stores…? It’s because there’s no longer enough dead-car-by-the-roadside business to support much of a service station industry, and cars need much less frequent maintenance.
No, the notion of the good-ol-days when cars were sooooo much more affordable (solid, sturdy, durable, dependable…) than they are today is just not real. Objectively, new cars really are better and safer and cleaner 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—but not further.
This should be a post of its own. You hit the nail on the head!
+1 Definitely agree.
Very good points. I think though, that for Mr. or Mrs. Average Driver, the peak of adequacy was reached in the late 1990s. Based on my own experience cars of the ’90s benefited from most of the advances that you describe above, but were not laden with the cheaply-made components or glitchy electronics that seem to cause so much hassle with new cars these days.
I’m amazed at how often parts like TPMS sensors, seatbelt pre-tensioners, back-up camera displays, etc. break down on new cars. In my opinion, these features are largely of dubious value, add a lot of complexity, and cause big, expensive hassles to car owners. Not to mention components that are made just plain cheaply now, even on expensive cars.
I know the ’90s were far from perfect too, but in some respects I think that cars then were more suitable for long-term daily drivers.
I’ve had the opposite experience. I’ve had a few cars from the 90’s which stranded me often because of “glitchty electronics etc.” or nickel and dimed me with many “minor issues” cropping up regularly
“I’m amazed at how often parts like TPMS sensors, seatbelt pre-tensioners, back-up camera displays, etc. break down on new cars. In my opinion, these features are largely of dubious value, add a lot of complexity, and cause big, expensive hassles to car owners. Not to mention components that are made just plain cheaply now, even on expensive cars.”
Hmmm…I’ve had three cars with the components mentioned above. None of those systems have ever broken down. In fact, nothing at all has broken in my last three cars. And I’m a lot tougher on my current cars than my 90’s cars.
I’ve also not found the systems above of “dubious” value..they’ve all come in handy many times.
But this is just my own anecdotal experience..ymmv
My neighbor has a 90’s Toyota Corolla and a 90’s Pontiac Grand Prix that just keeping going despite over 200,000 miles on each.
TPMS sensors fail when the giant hose clamp holding it to the wheel lets go at 70mph and your car has death vibrations until you stop and put on the spare. It’s happened twice with my Mom’s 09 Focus, first time in 2013 and again last winter when I was borrowing it. I took the wheel off, put on the space saver and walked into suburban tire with the wheel in hand, I just held up the tire and shook it and the service writer went “ah, bad TPMS”. Not exactly uncommon.
Most 90s cars I know of don’t have these. Same with backup cameras…. Which they don’t need since 90s cars still had overall good visibility
I’ve never considered there’s such a thing as a ‘perfect’ car. One just picks the kind of flaws they can live with. I can live with my ’64 Falcon. It’s a technically primitive automobile and I accept that and go with it. NOTE: According to the owners manual ‘rose-colored glasses’ were not one of the available options so I don’t look at my 2-door sedan through a rosy hue.
I’m not sold on the idea that just because something is installed on a new or late-model car it is automatically ‘progress’. Progress to what end? Perhaps at attempt to make late-model vehicles “idiot-proof” . . . ?
To me, I don’t look at ♦mandatory♦ air bags as ‘progress’. I think they should be optional. If you want ’em, get ’em. If you don’t that’s fine, too. Should be the buyer’s choice! Uncle Sam and his overbearing congressional brethren can go pound sand.
I admit I don’t know what ‘seat belt tensioners’ are.
Carter, it’s progress because you’re less likely to DIE.
Less likely to die in a horrific crash, which automakers are trying their damndest to increase with giant blind spots, infotainment features and now “autopilot”, which is clearly in the beta phase.
Course if I make it to work in my safety bubble and get hit by a bus crossing the street from the parking lot it doesn’t matter much anyway.
William: In regards to air bags I can never get behind those as a mandatory component of late-model vehicles. I 100% feel they should be an ♦optional♦ feature. I reckon we’ll have to do the “agree to disagree” thing.
I can find lots of nice things to say about old cars. I’ve never considered them perfect nor do I specifically think my ’64 Falcon is a perfect vehicle. But it’s good enough! There really is no blind spot in it. You can see the road out the back window or the rearview mirror without issue. No need for ‘backup cameras’. I actually feel spoiled I can see so much of the highway.
Critics of older cars from the ’80s and before don’t have to drive them. There’s plenty of late-model vehicles around for them to tool around in.
+1 . Absolutely right on the mark. Thanks for that.
Were the ‘Good ole days’ that good, or do we just remember them that way.
I think it’s subjective: our perceptions are relative to the engine’s torque curve, and with an influence from the cylinder count and configuration.
Older engines were (mostly) tuned for low-down torque, which gives the perception of lots of power. Modern engines (generalizing here) need to be revved out more, but have more get-up-and-go when you do. So around town the 280Z of fond memory would seem to have heaps of grunt, and the old straight six would be ultra-smooth and turbine-like as it accelerated, giving the perception of never-ending power. A Mazda four has less down low, plenty of power up high, but no matter how well it’s tuned a four will lack that smoothness and aural appeal that comes from a straight six. 🙂
Rose coloured glasses? Partly.
Big torque low down is fun my Centura six had that in spades it would wheelspin on every gearshift which was fun kinda hard on tyres but at least I knew why, it was fun, fast, and comfortable on long trips but impossible to find parts for and very light metal in the panels, a great car? No certainly not inexperienced drivers wrote them off very easily and in big numbers when new they will out run a 351 Falcon but they dont steer that well, not when you put on the clear specs.
I can honestly say my first car, a 1952 Chevy DeLuxe – while it ran superb, was a rusted-out, tired piece of junk.
I had it three months and I sold it and bought a 1961 Chevy Bel-Air 2 door sedan – the rare type only offered one year. A rod knocking, burnt oil like a diesel bus, equally or more rusted-out than the ’52. I put ‘way too much into it only to have the engine blow on my dad one morning while I was out in California in the USAF. He and a friend put another engine in it, but when I came home on leave, a mysterious gremlin appeared occasionally while driving and the engine shut down. Eventually it started and ran fine. Never did figure out the issue, but I sold it before returning from leave because I couldn’t trust it to get me from Jennings, MO to Beale AFB, California!
My third car – a 1964 Impala SS convertible was the top of the heap. That car never left me stranded, and the only issues it had was me – I was always looking for something to fix that wasn’t breaking or broke. That was the glory car of my life while in the service. That was the car I would have kept if I had the money to have a second car as a daily driver. I sold it just before getting out – a lifelong regret! Oh, well…
I could go on, but a nice reality check for me since the 1990s is how nice cars run. Follow an old classic car sometime, and smell how much they stink and pollute – that brings things into perspective!
My current Impala, while not glorious, a hardtop, SS or convertible is many times the cars of yesteryear! Trouble is – the old rides sure had loads of style, and I think perhaps that is when the glasses color themselves rosy!
I’m sure of it. As much as I loved my ’56 Chevy, I’d probably be quaking in my boots if I drove it now. Power NOTHING. Drum brakes all around. Rear-wheel drive!
But I’d look cool…
Rose coloured glasses about my first car? Nope. It was used up ’65 Impala 4 door with faded rose colour paint though. “Evening Orchid” I now know. I paid a couple hundred bucks for it and drove it for almost a year. The only reason I bought it was for the 396 under the hood, but financial reality set in and I was stuck with it for longer than I had planned. Fastest piece of shit in town though….
For me though, the sight of a ’65 Impala does bring happy memories of that brief period when I had adult freedom but before the reality of adult responsibilities caught up.
For a long time after I “grew up” I had rose coloured glasses about the old muscle cars that I or my friends had owned and worked on back when. I’ve had opportunity to drive and ride in a few nice examples owned by some of those same old friends in the last few years, and it’s fun for an afternoon. But I got my eyes opened when a kid in his Mom’s Accord dusted us at a light. Probably had the a/c on too….
“But I got my eyes opened when a kid in his Mom’s Accord dusted us at a light. Probably had the a/c on too….”.
.
Yabbutt ;
.
The much better, faster and more reliable cars of to – day cannot make all that glorious noise and tire smoke…..
.
The sound of a roaring American V-ate doing it’s thing at full chat is wonderful , a thing I hope to never ever forget although I don’t personally own nor want anything so powered .
.
Seriously ~ those old Hot Rods and Muscle Cars never handled for spit and few were any fun to drive *except* hammer down in a (fishtailing) straight line .
.
I’ve always been one who more enjoyed the curvy roads than brute power although there’s truth to what I often say :
” There’s no replacement for cubic displacement ” .
.
Just ask BTSR =8-) .
.
-Nate
Sometimes you get nostalgic about cars you only recently owned. For example, my 2004 Ford Falcon XR6. I owned that from around 2011-13, moved to the US for a year, and moved back and bought a 2007 Holden Calais. And although the Calais was much better-equipped – parking sensors, power seats, AUX jack, leather – I just never really connected with it. I would grumble about the stiff ride and a couple of quality issues, even though I found it looked great inside and out and had some nice interior materials. But eventually it developed a suspension knock and one time it left me stranded when a radiator hose broke. I would occasionally find myself longing for my purple Falcon with its custom exhaust (fitted by the previous owner), which was the first car I ever bought. When it came time to replace the Calais, I looked at Falcons again and happened to check out a similar example to my old one.
That’s when I realised some memories are best left in the past. Sitting in the Falcon, the bad memories came back. The intermittently-breaking A/C which would eventually fix itself but often left me sitting in a hot car and would have cost over a grand to repair. The scratchy door plastics. The way the doors didn’t close with a solid thunk. THE STIFF RIDE. Basically, everything I disliked about the Calais applied to the Falcon, too. But I had that connection with the Falcon, it was my first car, and I still remember the day I picked it up, the first gas station I filled it up at, the first song I played in it, the first tunnel I drove through where I dropped the stick into 2nd and revved the sucker and listened to that glorious exhaust.
Those were great memories. But it’s time to move on. It put the Calais ownership experience in perspective. Now, I’ve replaced the Calais with the first car I haven’t actually been excited to obtain. A car that was an exceedingly sensible and safe purchase but still inspires no real enthusiasm. A good car but not a car I love. And you know what? In 10-20 years, maybe I’ll look back at this one with rose-tinted glasses too.
Its odd about those later Commodores William, I was all set to buy one in 06 untill I rented one in Brisbane and drove it to Bundy then down to Hervey bay. Nice enough on the highway except for the annoying habit of it downshifting for every uphill undulation on the Bruce hwy the gutless alloy V6 to blame there my old 3.8 at least had some torque at cruising speed and the overly firm seats yeah nar it was responsible for me buying Peugeots and Citroens when I came home at least those handle well something that Dore didnt do well either.
Gotta admit, my Calais’ 3.6 was less punchy than the 4.0 in my Falcon. But it was an auto, which I think was partly to blame.
The Calais could handle though! Take it out to Mt. Glorious and it was like it was built for twists and turns. Ironically, it was commuting in which it was most annoying. First couple of years of VE Calais used the SS’ FE2 suspension tune. If you ever get the chance, drive an FE2-equipped VE on some twisty roads… It’ll put the VE’s handling in a new light.
This Is Why I Will Run A Modern Suspension And Powertrain In My 1957 Handyman.
I do not wear rose-colored glasses.
I’ve had some nice driving rides and I’ve owned some total POSs. I took one car that, due to running an underpowered Olds 307, was a POS to drive, and transformed it with a 350TPI. Became one of the best and most enjoyable cars I ever owned: my ’89 Caprice Classic wagon.
My 2002 Tahoe may be going on 15 years old but it’s well engineered and not only is it full of LS goodness, but also the full Autoride system so it handles pretty well for a 5,000-lb SUV.
You may call the Tri-Five Chevies overdone, too common, passe.
I LIKE the fact that over five million of them were built. Parts for most models are easy to find and not cost prohibitive. If I get in an accident, I’ll rebuild and go on.
My Handyman will encompass everything I loved about the ’57 Chevy I owned and drove before – from 1979-85 – combined with enough of the things I appreciate about today’s cars to make it an enjoyable ride.
Not necessarily to the local car cruise, where everyone’s afraid of getting a speck of dust or a drop of rain on their numbers-matching NOS chariot while some DJ wannabe blasts the same ol’ -same ol’ music made popular between Feb 3, 1959 and Feb 9, 1964.
Speaking of which…why are The Beatles verboten at car events? Or is that just a thing where I live (near Pittsburgh)?
I mean DRIVE cross-country. To work. Church. Kroger…Wegman’s when we visit family in upstate NY. Taking friends out for a pizza.
Driven. Appreciated. MY interpretation of a Curbside Classic.
When Fastball’s “The Way” was out, I would dream it was me and my wife – in a Tri-Five – instead of the mid-70s Olds in the video.
And unlike the song, the car never broke down. Because I’d built it to drive.
“I took one car that, due to running an underpowered Olds 307, was a POS to drive, and transformed it with a 350TPI. Became one of the best and most enjoyable cars I ever owned: my ’89 Caprice Classic wagon.”
I think i once described the 307 in my 1986 Cadillac Brougham as “feeling like a big-block” here on this very site so, Paul, I think you have a point.
Great question. I think about this often. I think in my case the answer is yes.
An article by Paul from a year ago was the eye opener for me:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/comment-classic-which-is-faster-a-lamborghini-countach-lp400s-or-a-toyota-camry-se-v6/
No glasses here. I prefer to drive my classics daily; my primary daily drivers are a 71 Satellite and an 82 Delta 88. Besides the nostalgia factor, and despite the fact that they are slower and less efficient than any modern vehicle, they are so much more pleasing to drive. They require much more driver input so you develop more of a relationship between man and machine, plus they are so much more nicer to look at and they make friends at every gas stop.
Back in the day, driving cars with questionable brakes and overall reliability was par for the course. That famous/notorious old Impala v. new Malibu crash YouTube makes me cringe. One other thing was, the old ones were undriveable if they were cold, and you didn’t warm them up a bit first. I live on a hill, and the next door neighbor likes to race her Escalade up the hill, about 5 seconds after starting it. She doesn’t need to warm it up to make it run. Now, she keeps blowing rocker arms and upper valve train parts, and complains that her car is a lemon. I could offer a small suggestion, but she is always in a hurry, to get kids to school and such, and I don’t want to inherit the issue, so I MMOB.
I can state that, given my preferences, my 75 Oldsmobile 98 Regency, plus the other 4 land yachts I had before it are better in my view than anything made today. And I can say it without rose-colored glasses. Rose-colored glasses implies your vision of the past is blurred so that the flaws and problems with that past are glossed over.
This is not the case for me. I’m 100% in the present, posting this from a cell phone. The car I drive, when I drive, is 41 years old.
“Better” is in the eye of the beholder. My mom has a Prius. It gets far better mileage, is more space efficient, is certainly safer in a crash, and needs almost no maintenence. My Olds is less efficient, has fuel economy in the teens, requires periodic carb adjustments and is probably pretty risky in a side impact collision. If you’re going to apply some scientific, actuarial approach to what is “better” then yeah, the Prius is “better”
What does the Olds have that the Prius doesn’t? Well, it is a 4 door hardtop and that makes for a very cool summer night driving experience. It has a radio and climate controls I can operate with my eyes closed. It has a smooth yet not overly wallowy ride unequaled by any car I’ve ever driven except the ’76 Coupe DeVille I once drove that was ever so slightly better. It has the wonderful whine of the TurboHydramatic 400. It has lots of metal. It has a huge trunk. It has nifty loose pillow velour upholstery. It comes in a cool color. It has tailfins. And push button doorhandles. And fender skirts. And that amazing torquey feeling of the 455 V8 and its burbling exhaust note.
Now, other than the ride, pulling a trailer, and, if I may say so, the climate control, it probably does nothing else better than the Prius from an “actuarial” standpoint. But the things that the Prius does better don’t happen to be my priorities. That’s not “rose colored glasses”, it’s liking/caring about different stuff.
I prefer older houses and pre-war apartment buildings for the same reason. Yeah, new places are far more efficient. But I care much more about aesthetics than reducing my life to a bunch of numbers.
Contrast those kinds of things with ones that objectively are better because everyone agrees on their purpose. There’s no question that sunscreen now is better than it was. Or that heart surgery procedures now are better than they were. New computers are better. Televisions deliver better picture in less space for less energy than they once did. But in those areas, it is actuarial; we really do all want the same thing.
Cars are not like that. You can’t simply reduce the Olds and the Prius to a point system and say “ah, Prius outscores in every empirical category, it wins”. Except on aesthetics and character, and those count more for me than anything else.
I can look back on my first car, the LTD, and say I overpaid for it given its problems, and back at the ’87 Brougham and say the E4ME carb sucked and I should have sold it to my mechanic in exchange for the ’80 with the 368 and no computer before it really started acting up. And those would be fair, untinted judgments. But those cars also served my purposes and tastes better than something new does. I remember a review of the Brougham that made a similar point—it said that people who bought it by 1991 were looking for more than just a transportation device. They wanted some history in their ride and just “taking the bridge” of the Brougham made them feel better. I think for some, cars are an appliance, and for those people, they are at their best today. For those who want a certain experience from their car (or house), there’s nothing you can buy now to replicate it.
In 1986, I was newly married, had my first house, a pretty decent job in advertising and a brand spanking new Mercury Capri 5.0L Sport Coupe. That car was everything my other Fox bodies wasn’t. It was reliable, fast and loaded. In 1989, I found myself becoming a father for the first time and with wanting my wife to be a stay at home mother, we needed to shed excess obligations. Bye bye, Capri. Nice knowing you.
Fast forward to 2009. I’m driving by an iron lot down the road from where I live. I spot a familiar humpbacked shape: a Mercury Capri 5.0L Sport Coupe. It was pretty used, but still looked OK. I stopped in and asked the shark working the lot for a ride. I told him my history with these cars and agrees to let me drive it alone.
I get in and all of the familiar sensations come flooding back. The feel of the seat, the angle of the steering wheel, the placement of the shifter. I light the car up and hear a rumbling I haven’t heard in decades. I put the car in gear and start driving, all the years of driving four banger economy-mobiles and SUVs made me forget about the instant torque delivery of the 5.0L Ford V8.
But, I get up to freeway speeds and other memories come back. Due to the short wheelbase, stiff shocks and the big fat (worn out) tires, the ride is way rougher than I remembered. Even the cheapest Cavalier had stronger brakes than this car, or at least it feels like it. The interior pieces and the hatch rattled, just like my old car. It exhibited a fair amount of junk shake as it pounded over imperfections in the road. Granted, this was a 23 year old car with 130K miles. Nothing was going to be perfect, but it still did many of the things my Capri did when fairly new. Annoying things you don’t easily forget…
When I return to the iron lot, the shark asks me how I liked the car. I told him I liked it better in 1986. I got back in my Cavalier and went back to my house. Like Tom Wolfe said: You can never go home again.
Honestly, I appreciate old cars for being old cars. I would never want to daily drive something elderly (besides myself, LOL). Several years ago my younger daughter asked me what old car I would like best in all the world. I responded, I don’t want an old car, I want a new car. She was a little stunned or even disappointed in my answer, but for the first time in 30+ years, I want a new car.
The trouble with old cars is – they got old. Another big problem is today’s automotive technicians have been trained in computers, fuel injection and disc brakes. Properly repairing and adjusting carburetors and drum brakes has become a lost art. Many these days don’t seem capable of simple repairs to heater controls, glovebox & door latches, manual window mechanisims, etc….
Over the years I’ve had the opportunity to drive many old cars. Some looked flawless, but drove like pieces of crap. (hack restorations?) Others looked like crap but drove so well, I wouldn’t mind driving them anywhere. And occasionally, they would both look good and drive as good as they looked.
In 2001, I inherited a rusty 1960 Mercedes Fintail 220S from an elderly friend who passed away. It was a basic car, no radio and manual everything, whose only frill was power assist for the 4-wheel drum brakes. The brakes required a lot of pedal travel and the engine felt coarse and throbby – not inspiring any drives longer than around the block. But first I went over the whole car, making sure everything was working as well as I could make it. After careful brake adjustment and new motor mounts, the car was transformed! The six cylinder engine felt smooth as silk and the brakes stopped reliably. Adding lap & shoulder belts and a radio made the car enjoyable and I was encouraged to drive it for local errands and even some highway trips.
Now the Mercedes didn’t replace my modern daily driver, but I enjoyed it anyway.
IF the car had come with disc brakes, power steering and AC (All availible on these by the mid ’60s), and I didn’t have to worry about the ravages of road salt, rust and idiot drivers, I wouldn’t mind driving a car like that old Fintail much more often, though I still wouldn’t want to subject a car that old to service as my sole transportation.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I had this very discussion tonight with a friend of mine who is 13yrs older than I. He seems to remember that large V8 cars of the 60’s and 70’s would go 300K miles or more without any major problems whereas the 80’s small 4cyl cars were pretty much done at 45K. He has never owned any foriegn cars, domestic big three only. He did acknowlege that he always kept a can of quick-start and a few tools in the trunk and made good use of them.
I seem to remember things differently. My dad always said that a car with over 100K miles on it was pretty much used up and should be replaced as soon as possible before it really breaks down. To him foreign cars were even worse. Four cylinder cars were half the motor a V8 was and therefore had to do twice the work so forget about ever seeing 100K miles in one of those. I beleived this too for a very long time. Years of driving beaters and keeping cars as long as possible changed my mind though.
I still occasionally run across some people my age who heard the same from thier dads and would never buy a used car ever for this very reason. No foreign or anything with less than a v8. They are all on borrowed time and once you hit 100k it’s time for a new one.
Old cars are nice to look at and drive occasionally but who in their right mind would daily drive anything with crank windows, no ac and only an am radio? Nevermind a cantankerous carb or fiddly points ignition and who has the time anymore to clean and re-gap spark plugs and adjust valve clearances? The final word on the discussion was that nostalgia is when you can’t remember how auful things really were.
Not for me, at least. My favorite old car that I spend some degree of time behind the wheel was grandma’s Olds Delta 88 Brougham from the early 80’s-the old school RWD boat, not the truncated abomination that came later.
Compared to my current car (Chrysler 300c, 2014) there is no comparison. The 300 could run circles around that old Olds in practically every test-except that the Olds had my beloved bench seat/column shifter set up, button tufted velour, and that nose raising acceleration (even though the 307 was pretty sedate) from a stop plus generous float.
I love my 300c for being as Brougham as it is, but honestly, if the wife was cool with it, I’d roll in an old RWD Fleetwood or 98.
Only if you don’t lose your perspective.
I have had, as daily drivers, just eight cars in my life. Four I bought and four were company cars between 1972-76. I still have three of the four I bought and split driving among two every week while the garage queen comes out when needing a shot in the arm. Not even the oldest has issues with being on the road except for mpg with premium and the current poorly mannered drivers of today. Granted their are four other cars but they were never bought as daily drivers.
Of the four company cars I can’t say I miss the 72 VW Squareback or the 73 Audi Fox at all. However, the 74 Duster and 76 Nova were great reliable cars that would hold their own today. No ABS, or air bags but basic handling, braking, ride and mileage were fine.
As for crank windows I love them. Have never replaced a window regulator but have replaced motors. The other thing is that these cars do not get old if you perform regular maintenance. However, if you think they are old, and then withhold regular maintenance they will get old/worn very quickly.
Maybe I am coming at this from an unusual direction, but is it that unusual to be a “car” enthusiast without being a “driving” enthusiast? 90% of my interest is simply the appearance of a car.
In the last 15 years, along with a number of newer cars, I have managed to put around 50,000 miles each on a ’65 Chrysler and a ’74 Dart. Now, I have no doubt that if you compare numbers, these are horribly outclassed by anything new, but in my real world everyday driving, they will start, stop, and turn quite satisfactorily.
This is not to suggest that old cars are better, gas millage alone is probably enough to ignore that idea, but I don’t see them as fragile, deathtrap antiquities either.
So, no rose colored glasses here, Old cars definitely have plenty of flaws, but I still think they are far far more interesting than anything current.
I think it is like most things we humans deal with in life.
there is always a logical side and an emotional side.
the logical side has no glasses. it knows todays cars are safer, better handling and better built. all car guys (if honest) will remember putting with breakdowns in our old vehicles that if happened with our new vehicles would have us at the dealership in full terminator mode.
the emotional side doesn’t give a damn. it just remembers those times as ‘quirks’ and our old rides ‘personality’ it remembers those cars as having ‘souls’ and a special place in our life. to do that of course the rose coloured specs have to come out.
go talk to someone who you know who likes cars and is a few decades older than you are now. they will tell you the cars of the 60’s,70’s or even 80’s that you remember fondly are just ‘cars’ and were nothing compared to the cars of their fond memories.
I believe everyone gets glasses at birth and as we grow the tint grows stronger. after all…never mind the cars….how many of us are willing to look back at the younger versions of ourself with honesty and clarity? 😉
I have to admit that I do see my prior cars in rose-colored glasses, Mine were a 2004 Dodge Intrepid and a 1997 Chrysler Concorde. To date, I haven’t owned any cars that have given me any significant amount of trouble. My third car, a 2013 Chrysler 200, seems to continue that trend.
I have good reason for doing so. Ever since I was a child I loved the cab-forward Chryslers. As soon as I was driving age I was looking for one.
Statistically, I should have had a relatively major issue between the two LH-platform Chryslers I owned. I was sort of expecting that going in. In all actuality, I didn’t have any trouble. For me, the 42LE transaxle was very reliable which was a problem area especially in the first generation cars. The 3.3 liter pushrod V6 in my Concorde was already known as one of Chrysler’s more “solid” engines, so that was more or less a known good factor. However, I had the 3.5 liter in my ’04 Intrepid. It is immensely more solid than the 2.7 liter V6 but it wasn’t without its problems. Some people had headgasket and spun bearing issues with the 3.5 liter engine. I didn’t.
Problems with air conditioning, cooling, electrical, and steering were also common within the LH series. With almost 120,000 of my own miles between two of these cars, I didn’t experience any of these. Nothing but tires, brakes (my Intrepid had an appetite for them) and oil changes/scheduled, routine maintenance.
I had no issues with my Concorde and only a window motor problem with my Intrepid. Could I have been the luckiest LH owner out there? Probably. Would I buy another one? Yes I would.
Rose colored glasses? How could it be otherwise?
I think these cars remind us of memorable episodes of our lives. They were part of our childhood family memories. These were the cars we drove , or wish we could have, during our teen years and young adulthood. These were cars that we aspired to when we had so much optimism and the world seemed to hold so much promise. The actual physical machine is almost irrelevant. Memories and dreams are much more important than cubic inches and rear end ratios.
There was a time during the Malaise era when new cars were so bad that cars of the past could stand much taller in comparison and memory. They were faster, better looking and more exciting than what you could find in the showroom. Progress came along and left the hot performers of the past in the dust. But this is really unimportant because our memories and old dreams are still very much alive.
The cars of our past are not going to measure up in comparison to the cars of today. What is significant is that these were cars that stood apart from the herd. Most of the cars featured here could be described as “accessible” classics. These are not limited production, seldom seen models, but were once pretty commonly seen on the streets.
The viewers on this site have a different range of interests in cars, Some are confirmed gear heads. Some are enthusiasts that currently own and drive vintage cars. Most of us are just kind of nostalgic and enjoy taking a look back at what we remember as the “Good old Days”.
While my Cougar is vintage it is more nostalgic for me. It is my first car. It is the car I had my first date in. It is the car I had my first kiss in and I’ll leave it at that. Although I can say no one has been in the back seat since that time in 1973. In the console storage is a very faded speeding ticket along with my puka shells. In the trunk are my Churchill fins for body surfing. On the back window is the 1971 sticker saying San Diego State before it became a University.
The car is really a very effective time machine which is my shot in the arm. I can get a big smile on my face just sitting in the car, in the dark garage, listening to the radio. There is even a little tiny ding on the top from when I locked myself out of the car the night of my high school graduation. I was Po’d about that and see it every time I open the door reminding me of my hand that night in June 1971.
No Rose Colored Glasses for one particular car I’ve owned. A ’69 VW Beetle which was the money pit from hell. We all pay our dues in life and this was my Waterloo.
From that point forward, I never entertained the idea of a VW when it came time to shop for a new car.
Any rose colored glasses I’ve worn were permanently taken off my nose during the time I owned my Porsche 924S. Now, that statement is not to be taken as disparaging regarding the car. I still consider it the best car I’ve ever owned, with a comfort and balance that suited me perfectly. And I still regret trading the car in, for a faster, sexier, but in the long run much less appealing Pontiac Solstice.
During the tenure of the 924S, I also owned an ’04 Mazda3 (automatic) and my current ’05 Scion xB. The Mazda was faster, handled essentially just as well, and was less maintenance intensive. The Scion wasn’t faster or quite a good handling, but I could go from the Porsche to the Scion without any feelings of disappointment in driveability. Considering the markets they sold to, that’s saying a lot for the little toaster.
No, they don’t build them like they used to, and anybody who says that with a straight face is delusional. They build them better. I knew that back in 1968 with my first car, a 1937 Buick Special. Clean, original, and well cared for, but it drove like a load compared to dad’s ’67 Camaro RS.
And don’t even start on “character”. Character comes with age. 25 years from now, our successors will be going on and on and on about the character of a Toyota Camry, in the same voice that we currently save for a ’65 Chevy Impala.
Well said, as usual, Skye. I always get a kick when somebody tells me their 30 year old beater is a better car than a modern vehicle. As a daily driver, I would for one much rather have a 2016 Honda Accord four cylinder than a 1979 Impala 5.7 litre. The Accord is roomier inside, rides better, handles better, is faster, is safer and uses half the fuel.
I absolutely look at many of my past cars with rose-colored glasses. I know this because I didn’t regret selling any of them at the time I sold them.
I love my rose coloured glasses, since fantasy is always a lot better than reality. This is one of the reasons I don’t have a really old car. Say, for example, I found a mint 1979 Impala with a 350 and F-41, a car my dad had when I as 15. That car was so exciting when dad and I went to the dealership to special order it, and I chose all the options. When I finally got to drive it, the experience was a real thrill.
Forty years later, am I going to have that same thrill? Well, of course, the answer is no, and I would be stuck with an old car that I don’t drive a whole lot, if ever.
That’s why I try to stay fit and do new things as often as I can. I still find new things very thrilling, in a way old things cannot compare.
I still love to look at and talk about old cars, which I see as a reflection of cultural history, a topic in which I am very interested, and not owning an old car allows me the time to train for scuba diving, which is still providing me with plenty of thrills.
Besides, some day I will have an antique car. I am only eight years away on my TL.
I think we recall our old cars within the context of their times. GM established their final North American based large RWD drive car template with the 1973 A body that morphed into the 1977 B and C body that lasted through 1996.
My good fortune was to drive many of those cars, equipped with some critical options, throughout their 23 year run. Compared to many cars on the road, they were competent, comfortable, sometimes fast, generally reliable, decent handling and good looking. Even an objective source like Consumer Reports generally liked these cars. BUT, this was entirely in the context of the times – when Japanese cars could be little tin-can death traps and some domestic cars would not start coming off the assembly line.
Recalling certain realities regarding short lived transmissions, AC repairs, rust, paint problems, oddball stuff falling apart, and small niggling repairs that were needed to keep those cars looking and performing well, modern cars are certainly leaps and bounds ahead of those old cars.
So, when I tell you that my 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham was generally a joy to drive, the context was that is was loaded with virtually every option, the best balanced drivetrain (350/350THM) and was well maintained by the first owner and myself. It was a fairly rare experience (back THEN) for me to drive a car that I felt even equaled it for all around performance, let alone exceeded it.
Today, the performance of my 2012 Ford F-150 PICK-UP puts just about every aspect of that Cutlass to shame.
But, I’d bet I’d still like driving a well equipped ’76 Cutlass in good condition.
No rose coloured glasses here.
I don’t hear too many folks ever arguing old cars were ‘better’ cars than modern vehicles, other than possibly DIY repair ability and cost. Sort of a red herring.
I like older cars much better, but of course they are inferior in every objective performance metric.
Older cars however have style, history, and character, and no character doesn’t just come from age. I *like* the way they drive.
I strongly believe the 1960s was the high water mark for automotive character, where improved technology dovetailed with great liberty in automotive design.
The 1950s, 1970s, and 1980s were strong supporting decades.
Modern cars however are very professional affairs, and government regulations and wind tunnel issues greatly limit design freedoms (not saying this is a bad thing, just does not lend to character).
For the record, I wasn’t alive in the 1960s.
In short, for me personally, yes modern/new cars absolutely for functional use and moving the family about, but my decision making is 90% rational in my choices. It’s the old stuff that puts that rationality ratio in reverse.
I recall 1960’s cars very well and the daily experience was not so great. “Tune ups” were twice a year, and if you didn’t, the car would run like crap. Said tune ups were not cheap. Then there was the losing battle of rust. I can recall all manner of rust voodoo, none of which worked. The fact was, in 99% of Canada, your shiny new Beaumont was going to be a rust bucket in five years-or less.
How well did Ziebart work? From my understanding it was at least somewhat effective. Cars did rust in Saskatchewan, although more slowly. It took eleven years for our ’66 Mustang to develop the usual rust holes at the bottom of the fenders ahead of the door. In the east, they were like that after four.
I firmly believe increased the salt content in the later 70s, my ’76 Omega (Nova) was getting flaky in the rear wheel openings at 5 years of age.
My ’81 X-body Skylark, POS it was, never rusted in the 5 years I had it, and that includes 2 Michigan winters going to school. I have always diligently washed, waxed and detailed all my cars, even to this day. My uncle was life-long Ontarian who swore by annual under-oilings.
Ziebart didn’t work well and many said it increased rusting in some cases as it held moisture against the cars undercarriage. In Ontario most swear by oil spray and so do I. We started out with rust check then switched to Krown in my family. I have heard good things about corrosion free too and I have been using it for spot touch ups on my trucks undercarriage with great success. Oil spray and diligent washing and waxing kept my dad’s old ’76 Malibu rust free after many Ontario winters. It’s still on the road today and has all original sheet metal and is rust free.
I’ve gone to Chicago area junkyards for over 10 years looking for Tbird and Cougar parts to keep mine healthy and pretty, and one of the things I have noticed is those cars with Ziebart plugs in the door jambs are the most rusted examples I’ve seen by a pretty large margin. The MN12 was relatively rust prone to begin with but it generally localizes itself to a few key areas on them like the ends of the rockers, the rear shock towers, or the front aprons, but the Ziebart cars always seem to have entire panels like the rockers or inner fenderwells eaten completely away.
I have to second Bill with the oil spray. It’s probably not the most green solution for rust prevention but it is far more effective than anything else I tried. Well aside from buying a car less than 10 years old, but that’s no fun.
+1. I like the way old cars run, ride, and drive. Not to mention smell and look. Unless I have to drive to everything all the time, the modern day metrics don’t really matter to me.
Again I equate it to buying an old house. Sure, the place doesn’t heat as well, probably needs a new roof etc etc but it’s got things new subdivisions just don’t have.
“Older cars however have style, history, and character, and no character doesn’t just come from age. I *like* the way they drive.”
+2, well said.
As far as tune-ups, I never had issues with tune-ups as I did them myself. Adjusting timing, points, plugs, choke etc… isn’t every hard to do and not overly time consuming and the parts are cheap. I do agree with Canucknucklehead that the rust is something I don’t miss battling. That to me was by FAR the worst part about old daily drivers. Since my old vehicles don’t see inclement weather it’s no longer an issue.
+1 Rust is the only real anxiety I have with older cars, not safety, not reliability, not mechanical repairs. I’m mechanically inclined, in fact I’d rather spend my free time tinkering with some mechanical object than I would be entertained by some form of media. I like Electronic Fuel injection and ignition primarily because it burns fuel cleaner and more efficiently, but I really wish there was something for me to periodically tinker with and adjust.
I certainly am well aware of how much improved modern cars over the vintage cars we all love. While I will readily admit that my modern daily drivers are better in almost every way over vintage cars, that doesn’t dilute owning or driving an old car. Someone else said it well, that old cars are a much more visceral experiences. You feel more at one with the machine because quite frankly old cars just don’t do as good of a job of isolating you from their mechanical parts.
I also think that mechanical tuning/upkeep is another enjoyable aspect of old cars. I love to tinker and tune ignitions and carbs, and have never found any of my old vehicles overly maintenance intensive. Yes, they require much more upkeep than a modern car, but tune-ups are simple and cheap and not overly time consuming. I also really enjoy just the general upkeep, from detailing the car, to minor mechanical repairs, to doing some minor modifications to improve the overall driving experience. This is all part of owning a vintage car and for me it’s what makes it fun.
I have a brand new car in my garage and a 44 year old machine sitting next to it. Although the brand new car is much better as a daily driver and far better on fuel, I can tell you that driving it is about as exciting as watching paint dry. It does everything so well, that it’s boring. While driving my old car is awesome, I love every minute of it and it just puts a smile on my face. Part of the enjoyment is it’s lack of perfection, it’s how much different it drives from a modern car, it is that V8 torque and the sound of the secondary’s on the 4-bbl carb. It’s certainly not better, but it really is great fun and I get far more enjoyment.
Agree. I enjoyed learning how to do the simple repairs that are still possible on my old cars. Even simple stuff like spark plugs or headlights, or more complicated things like tuning the carb, give you a sense of accomplishment. Also, makes you feel less at the mercy of mechanics. With the new car, you have no idea where anything is under the hood or what it does. They can just tell you anything and you pretty much have to take their word for it or bring it somewhere else…where you still won’t know for sure. And new cars do break down less so in theory that won’t come up often…but generalizations are just that. I happen to prefer more frequent minor issues than occasional but highly expensive problems beyond my ken…I occasionally defend leasing companies in litigation about this stuff…it does happen.
And everything you’re saying here for antique cars goes double for antique motorcycles.
At least in a 50 year old car you sit down and, assuming you know how to drive a manual, you take a minute to look over the controls, figure out what’s where, maybe get a quick instruction regarding the carburetor and the cold engine, and you drive off.
Go back to a 50 year old motorcycle. First off, odds are there’s no electric start and you have to kick it. After priming the carburetors and freeing up the clutch. And then making sure the hand and foot controls are in the same places as a modern bike. And I’ll still bet even money it takes more than a couple kicks to get it to start.
Antique tractors as well. I used my 2010 New Holland Boomer 8N to bale yesterday. Diesel, CVT, live PTO, etc. It’s a nice tractor. Then I used my 1950 Ford 8N to pull the hay rack around the field to collect the bales. 6 volt, gas, updraft carb, “dead” PTO. It’s actually still my favorite to run! Part of that is the memories that go with it, going back to the ’52 8N that my Dad had on which I spent many an hour mowing, plowing, etc. in my early teens.
I certainly do miss some cars from the past. My father’s 62 Comet seemed like a great car as a kid sitting in the back seat. At age 16 it was enjoyable to drive as A to B transportation. Absolute the Comet would not be enjoyable to drive today with no power steering, brakes and the 3 spd on the tree.
At the time I had my 71 Ford Custom and the 75 Custom 500 they were ideal transportation living in a rural area. But much too big today as I was reminded with the Grand Marquis I drove from 2014-15.
Many former vehicles were very reliable and well put together. But I’m getting older and less inclined to shift gears while driving in the city. Still, the rusty 02 Protege I bought for $900 last year is a hoot to drive. Doesn’t burn any oil and recently achieved 36 mpg. If it survives the winter, I may even drive it to the Seattle area. Its that comfortable too.
Cars have certainly reached a zenith and almost all are very good in many ways. But I still want to have a visceral reminder of driving in my youth. That’s why I’m still hanging on to my Mustang convertible. And its not perfect, nor does it have to be for me to enjoy it.
Mentioned a few times before, but it seems like the way some memorialize, its as if “everyone drove a Muscle Car in the 60’s”. All over the place were RWD, 400 HP V8 coupes”
😉
But now, there are 40-something auto writers longing for the 90’s, missing the Asian sport coupes, and “light weight” Sentra SE-R. Everything is generational.
I don’t think it’s just cars we look back at with rose tinted glasses, it’s times past in general. Times that people look back on as being the good old days many times had a lot of bad things going on.
As far as the cars, some of us do genuinely enjoy driving the technology of days gone by. If that weren’t so,there wouldn’t be people like myself who love cars built before my parents were even born.
I have a modern car as well. It makes me appreciate the honesty and simplicity of my aircooled Volkswagens. The aircooleds make me appreciate how smooth and quiet my GTI is, oh and that refrigerator cold a/c too.
Ok, ok. Maybe the old 67 442 didn’t handle all that well. And maybe it wasn’t all THAT fast. And, yes, it drank an AWFUL lot of 48 cent per gallon premium. But, OMG, the sounds it made as it turned the rear tires into a giant cloud of grey smoke… Rose colored glasses? Oh HELL yes!
Yep, time moves on, technology improves, standards change, consumer demands and expectations are altered, so I agree, today’s cars are better in many if not most ways. They don’t look as good as anything from the 60’s but of course there were no bumper laws, etc, impeding designers then. The legal conformity and increased desire by car companies to design by committee and consumer clinics has resulted in boring bland black, grey, silver and white blob-mobiles. More than ever, cars are un-distinguishable appliances. Yesterday, I mistook a new Ford Fusion for a new Chrysler 200. I’m sure they are each equally reliable and thoroughly capable vehicles in their own (yet similar) ways but they might as well be toasters. On the other hand, I expect my toaster to be reliable and to last a long time, so I get the desire for those same qualities to be available in our modern cars. It’s unfortunate that the sometimes crappy build quality of cars from the rose-coloured era negated all the swoopy styling and what engineering innovations there were. When it was proven that cars from overseas could be built better and last longer, consumers made Accord and Camry household words. American car-makers took far to long to ‘get it’ and relinquished their market share, profitability and reputations. They’ve left us with a nostalgia that is tied to the memories those American cars from our younger days. Sadly, my American car memories are of a poor-build quality ’73 Chevelle and a slower-than molasses ’74 Pinto. I miss the V8 smoothness and versatility of the Chevelle’s wagon bodystyle and nothing about the Pinto, so I’ve no nostalgia for a real car, only a sense and a desire to have been able to experience the 60’s from the driver’s seat instead of as a child passenger. In the end, would I opt for modern comfort and reliabilitly over great style and historic/nostalgic value? Yep. But if I can ever afford to, I have my list of top-ten fave American cars of the ’60’s close by and wouldn’t hesitate to add one or two of them to my garage of dreams.
I had a 66 Dart Gt, 273 V8, 4 speed. It got 17 mpg until I put in a 360 and it got 24 mpg (higher gears, same performance) I updated it with disc brakes in the early 80’s and was amazed at how well it stopped. I refurbished it 3 times and it needed it again, but I had finished my TC-3. The new car was faster, lighter, stopped better, and got 26 mpg. That old 360 worked well in that car also. The old 66 had its problems. Once in a while, it would die and not have any electricity available. I would have to jiggle a bunch of wires and it would start right up. I tried replacing the connectors, but it didn’t help. Wiring is the bane of all cars. It continues in the new cars. After a few years, the connectors and the insulation go bad and the cars end up being un-reliable.
Wait…you put a 360 in a TC3??