Thread Number: 72176  /  Tag: Other Home Products or Autos
Old cars vs New cars
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 954522   8/25/2017 at 21:49 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

What do you like better? Old cars, or new cars.

Post# 954528 , Reply# 1   8/25/2017 at 22:46 by brucelucenta (tulsa, oklahoma)        

brucelucenta's profile picture
New Lexus retractable hard top.

Post# 954529 , Reply# 2   8/25/2017 at 22:53 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

1972 Ford LTD Convertible.

  View Full Size
Post# 954535 , Reply# 3   8/26/2017 at 01:36 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Well, that is actually a hard to answer question.

Let me tell you a little story.

In the mid 90's we got a new car -- I could tell you more details, which to people who love cars would think are important, but as you'll see soon, not so much in this case.

So, it was December or January, I can't remember anymore, but it was the Winter right after we got the car, which was by then about 6-7 months old, and just after a snow fall, maybe an inch or two, which usually doesn't bother folks around here.

We crossed an intersection, along with lots of other cars, make a U-turn, and go to a diner. We get seated, order food, and then, as we were all talking waiting for the food, we were also looking out the window, as people do when they are bored and we had a very good view of the intersection we had just driven thru with no problems, as had well, I dunno, at least a few hundred before we did and a few more after we parked.

Cars are passing by, traffic light is changing from red to green and back.

Then, an old car very similar to Ford LTD above, possibly from the 60's, possibly some other make and model, we don't know, but not a convertible, crossed the same intersection at the speed everyone else was driving.

The car somehow lost control, spun out and crashed against a few more cars and ended up on the sidewalk.

Meanwhile, a bunch of cars braked really hard to avoid crashing, and some of them were able to not only brake, but also steer out of the trouble zone.

Anyone that knows me can tell you that I have *always* been a proponent of safety equipment and active safety equipment in automobiles, but that day I was completely unable to speak for a minute or two and dozens of people inside the restaurant saying "Wow!" at the same time makes up for a really loud "Wow!".

There may be dozens of reasons why it happened, from worn out tire(s) to power steering systems that do not give enough feedback to the driver and/or fail to vary the assist according to road conditions, to suspensions that used to, back then, be tuned for comfort (the stereotypical "living room sofa driving down the road" or "cream puff"). And it's not that we can condem designers/engineers back then, it took them a couple of decades to not only find out such things could predispose the car occupants to an accident or a more serious accident, it then took them some time to fix the problem as similar things in the real world go.

So, with all that in mind, glad you asked: me and the hubby do not change cars at the drop of a hat, like some people who always have to have a car that is less than 2 years old, but when we change cars, we try to get a brand new one, with all the safety features that we can afford.

Some may claim that a steering wheel that stiffens up as the speed goes up or the car detects slippery road are not as "comfortable" as that 1972 Ford LTD. Same thing for suspensions that keep the tires always in contact with the road and are tuned for stability instead of "floating" over the potholes. Or any other number of things.

But we're still here, and we're also under the average number of crashes for the average population in US.

So I guess you should put us in the "we like new cars better" category.


   -- Paulo.

Post# 954537 , Reply# 4   8/26/2017 at 01:58 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

Newer cars have more safety features, but they lack in styling. Today's cars all look alike, and don't have any character at all. Boxy cars look better than today's curvy cars! The only place modern cars deserve to go to is the crusher! In fact, all modern cars deserve to go to the crusher!

Post# 954538 , Reply# 5   8/26/2017 at 02:49 by washdaddy (Baltimore)        

washdaddy's profile picture
I've always liked the older FULL SIZED cars. I do however like the safety features of today's vehicles. If I could just get the two of them merged together into one I'd be one happy camper.

Post# 954540 , Reply# 6   8/26/2017 at 03:13 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"Newer cars have more safety features, but they lack in styling. Today's cars all look alike, and don't have any character at all. Boxy cars look better than today's curvy cars! The only place modern cars deserve to go to is the crusher! In fact, all modern cars deserve to go to the crusher!"



I guess it just depends on who you ask, doesn't it?

People who grew up around 1972 Fords can probably just take a look at that car and tell you maker model and year. So can people who love cars.

But ask a current teenager who grew up with "new"/"modern" cars and they can't tell you if it's a 1972 Ford LTD or a 1960 Dodge.

To you, it may seem strange or absurd. To many it's the reverse, a co-worker of my husband's had a pre-teen that could rattle make model and year of any current car but had no idea what "old" cars were, to him they looked all the same except for color.

To some other people, they can look at cars and see tail fins or some kinds of chrome or even the way some details change by decade and tell you what decade the car was, but nothing else.

"Style" is relative -- every 10 years it will change and it may or may not come back in another 20.

Safety, not so much.

A friend of mine was in a car crash in the mid-80's. He was lucky to survive, but spent 6 months in a hospital. When he came back to grad school, one day someone got him talking about the accident. He basically said "y'know when you hit your toe on the bed frame and it hurts like hell?", and everyone around the table went "yeah...", then he said, "now when I stub my toe it hurts just the same as it used to, but to me it doesn't hurt like hell anymore, it's just a mild annoyance compared to breaking lots of bones and staying 6 months in the hospital."

Another friend also suffered an accident in a car very similar to the one you posted, in the late 70's. Didn't break as many bones, but also spent 3 months in the hospital. His girlfriend was also in a different accident, in the same time frame, a mild accident by comparison, but the windshield broke and she was in the passenger seat -- her advice is that if you ever notice that the driver is going to crash, refrain from screaming and close your eyes or you may end up with glass inside your mouth and eyes. While this is *still* possible with laminated safety glass, it was much more common with old windshields that glass would end up everywhere.

So, forgive us Sean if we don't share your opinion -- you are welcome to your opinion, you have a right to it and to express it.

But you did not come here and ask "who likes old cars?", a fact that makes me respect you a bit more, you did in fact ask for our opinions and which we preferred.

And I respect your opinion and your taste -- you prefer old cars.

There's no need for justification, it is what you like.

So, perhaps you don't need to make up reasons or excuses, certainly nothing so frail as "it had more style", given that lots of people will disagree which was more stylish. Style and fashion change often and regularly make a full circle and come back again.

If you stick around for any length of time in this site, you'll find out many people here suffered accidents that would 20-30 years ago have sent them to the hospital for an extended stay, and they just walked out of the scene of the accident, some with a few bruises, but nothing major.

Personally, I consider that a massive improvement, but I tend to like my friends alive, healthy and well, thank you.

   -- Paulo.

PS: we now have way more cars on the road and people driving than in 1950's, but they had way more people *dying* from car crashes back then than we have now. I appreciate the improvement.

Post# 954541 , Reply# 7   8/26/2017 at 03:34 by foraloysius (Groningen, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
I like looking at classic cars, but I'll stick to modern cars for driving.

Post# 954544 , Reply# 8   8/26/2017 at 05:17 by goatfarmer (South Bend, home of Champions)        

goatfarmer's profile picture

I wouldn't sell the two older cars we have sitting in the garage. But they have NONE of the safety features the newer ones have.

There is something to be said for all cars.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 954546 , Reply# 9   8/26/2017 at 06:09 by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Safety device for old AND new cars------The DRIVER.If you have a BAD driver in ANY car ---its Dangerous-Safe driver-any car is safer!I like my new 2016 Toyota Highlander Hybrid.It is a "computer on wheels" but like it nonetheless.I haven't had much experience driving older cars-so I can't comment.

Post# 954552 , Reply# 10   8/26/2017 at 06:51 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
If I won the lotto

I would never think of owning a new car, Then I could afford to drive a Desoto or a 300G everyday, dang the gas...Give me Full Time Chrysler Power Steering ANYDAY, If I ever want to drive a lumber wagon I will, I want effortless one finger control.

Post# 954562 , Reply# 11   8/26/2017 at 07:55 by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
My favorite vintage cars are from the late 1950s, especially GM cars. I like the fins/wings as well as the design of dashboard controls. And the acres of chrome, of course.

Neither of these beauties would come close to fitting in one of today's grocery store parking spaces.

As with vintage appliances, I'm glad there are people out there who have the passion (and inclination) to restore these cars.

Having said all that, I wouldn't trade the reliability, safety and creature comforts of today's cars as my daily driver. Sure would be great to take the '59 droptop Caddy out for a drive on Sundays, though!

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 954568 , Reply# 12   8/26/2017 at 08:35 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Safety and style

panthera's profile picture

I live in a city and state which is frequently tied with the worst places in Florida for drivers causing  bad accidents through bullheadedness.

"I ain't gonna and you cain't make me" is an actual phrase here in Wyoming.

Nobody who has driven here longer than one day enters the intersection the moment the light turns green - there's one or two cars who will be running the red light in the other two directions.

Everyone who has lived here for longer than a day knows that only limped-wristed pussy-boys wear safety belts.

The most important control in the whole car or pick'up truck is the hand-held cell phone.


So - much as I love vintage cars - the sad statistics we get to read in the papers every day here make it clear: The 1998 cars and later just have enormously higher survival rates.

Post# 954572 , Reply# 13   8/26/2017 at 08:59 by joeekaitis (Rialto, California, USA)        
Love my Sube, but if money grew on trees . . .

joeekaitis's profile picture




. . . I would treat myself to a meticulously restored Studebaker Avanti.


Then, again, I love Lava Lamps, too.


  View Full Size
Post# 954574 , Reply# 14   8/26/2017 at 09:16 by beekeyknee (Columbia, MO)        

beekeyknee's profile picture
I thought you were going to say the most important control in the car was the cigarette lighter and ashtray. As far as cars go, I think older cars were cool and stylish and new cars are safer and boring. I believe there are too many distractions in new cars. The radio alone is distracting. When phones and other gadgets are added to the mix, it becomes dangerous.

Post# 954575 , Reply# 15   8/26/2017 at 09:17 by foraloysius (Groningen, the Netherlands)        
Then, again, I love Lava Lamps, too.

foraloysius's profile picture
Perhaps W. Germany vases too? lol

Post# 954583 , Reply# 16   8/26/2017 at 10:14 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
While I do appreciate the many safety features in new cars, I like old cars better as far a styling goes and to a certain extant the way they drive. Out of the 23 cars I've owned since 1969 I've had a 55' Cadillac Coupe deVille, 64' Chevrolet Impala SS and a 67' Buick Skylark. The Skylark was my favorite car out of all 23. It was just the right size, being an intermediate, it wasn't too big or too small. It was easy to handle, rode smoothly, best power steering ever, great 2 speed Buick auto trans and it consistently got 19 mpg for a heavy V8 that could get up and go. I learned to drive in old boats like these and I have a great fondness for them.

But I can also recall the terrible accidents that I used to see in the 50's and 60's when the occupants weren't wearing seatbelts and they were speared by the steering column in a head-on or thrown thru the windshield, or the engine was sitting in their laps. My parents used to tell us to not to look when we came upon a scene like this, and of course, kids being kids we did just what we were told not to do.

But that being said, I can honestly say that I can't think of one new car that I can't live without. After owning 23 different cars, the thrill is gone for a new car. However, should I ever strike it rich, I'd love to own either a 51' Cadillac Convertible or Coupe de VIlle, 51' Chevrolet Bel Air convertible or HT, 51' Buick HT or another 67' Skylark.

But since this is not likely to happen I'll stick with my trusty, dependable 07' Honda Civic, which has been the most dependable car I've ever owned, had it since new, 54.800 miles and it feels like a part of me when I drive it. To satisfy my craving for vintage autos I have been a subscriber to Hemmings Classic Cars and before that Hemming Special Interest Autos. I look forward to every issue, brings back lots of great memories and its a whole lot less expensive than actally owning one of these classic works of art.

Post# 954587 , Reply# 17   8/26/2017 at 10:33 by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

I like the performance, handling, and fuel economy of modern cars. For old cars I like the styling and big displacement engines.

I would not daily drive an old car for safety alone. I need to be able to maneuver, brake and accelerate quick to keep those bastards on the road from killing me. A loud horn is a must too! Just yesterday someone without even attempting to look tried to pull out of a parking lot on a curvy road right into me as I came around the corner, without that horn I would've had to swerve into oncoming traffic!

Post# 954592 , Reply# 18   8/26/2017 at 11:06 by JoeEkaitis (Rialto, California, USA)        
No matter what I drive, I use JDDI*

joeekaitis's profile picture

Automotive safety technology available on every properly maintained mechanically sound vehicle. The world would be a much better place if EVERYONE used JDDI*!

*Just Drive, Damn It.

Post# 954595 , Reply# 19   8/26/2017 at 11:25 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

There are a couple of newer cars that I like, but if I could choose any newer car, it would be a Ford Crown Victoria, which was the last full-size car Ford built.

Post# 954599 , Reply# 20   8/26/2017 at 11:56 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

One difficulty I see with this question is what exactly is an old car? It seems like it's one of those labels that could have a bunch of definitions... Even for the same person. At times, I can see calling a 10 year old car old...but it's not the same old as a 1960 car.


This said...most of the cars I've owned have been "newer old." I have owned--exactly twice--a car with less than 100,000 miles, but in both cases it was barely under 100K. I have gotten at least one car with over 300K miles at the time of purchase (although the drive train wasn't original & untouched). The newest car was 8 years old (one of the


What made these cars attractive was, frankly, the cost.


Although I have to admit...I wish I could have something a little less worn someday... Many of my cars have been entirely local puddle hoppers, but it would be nice to have something I can drive across the state without thinking about... Indeed, I've been without a car for some months now, and I was talking a woman I know about it. I commented how I'd like something I could do wild and crazy things driving to a nearby city (which has attractions like Trader Joe's).


I like cars that are much older for history and styling. Although I doubt I'd want one as daily driver...unless I wasn't driving it much. Strangely, perhaps, it isn't the safety argument others have, but more a consideration of liking more modern suspensions ability to keep the car reasonably stable going through curves.

Post# 954600 , Reply# 21   8/26/2017 at 11:57 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Too true,

panthera's profile picture

My disdain for the hysterical ökodämmlichen Idioten back home in Germany who try to impose their personal rules on me doesn't extend to car safety. Much as I love our 74 Sedan deVille, I'll stick to airbags and rigid passenger compartments Any day. Too freakin' many jerks on the road.

This post was last edited 08/26/2017 at 13:03
Post# 954602 , Reply# 22   8/26/2017 at 11:59 by rickr (.)        

rickr's profile picture
I have two antique cars. A 1961 Oldsmobile Super 88 Bubbletop, and a 1955 Cadillac Coupe de'Ville. I love having and driving the old cars, however I feel much safer in my 2013 Volvo C70 retractable hardtop. The Volvo handles much better and is much easier to drive. Don't get me wrong. I still LOVE my old cars, and will always have them.

Post# 954603 , Reply# 23   8/26/2017 at 12:06 by fan-of-fans (Florida)        

I love looking at the older cars, my neighbor used to have an early 60s Lincoln convertible with the rearward doors. That was fun to ride in! What a barge.

But as far as owning or driving, I prefer newer cars because they are more comfortable and because of the newer conveniences.

My current car is a 2001 with a little over 100,000 on it. But for my next car I'd like something made within the last 5-8 years. I don't think I would ever buy a brand new car but I would want something with the latest technology and safety features.

Post# 954604 , Reply# 24   8/26/2017 at 12:08 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Of course, when talking safety it seems to me that a lot comes down to a question of specific cars. Talk of eras can only be general. I recall there was some columnist for (IIRC) a Wall Street Journal Sunday supplement to the local paper that talked about his son getting an old Saab 900 about 10 years ago. There was some outcry--that isn't as safe as a new car! In some ways, probably true--but that car was probably, for its time, very safe. It might have even had technology no else ever had. That car was probably safer than some newer cars. I had a car 10 years newer, or so, with airbags--but apparently the crash protection was, ah, criticised by safety people when my car was new. In that case, an older Saab might have been, overall, safer.

Post# 954605 , Reply# 25   8/26/2017 at 12:11 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Neither of these beauties would come close to fitting in one of today's grocery store parking spaces.


That reminds me of a grocery store not far from where I grew up. It closed, and later reopened as a thrift store (which seems to be the fate of old grocery stores here...). We never went there when it was a grocery store, but I have been there a few times since it opened up as a thrift store. They had the old parking lot stripes left. Very faded...and yet still visible enough. And wow! How big the slots were!


Another memory: parking lots in the 80s that had 2 sets of slots--regular, and ones for compact cars.

Post# 954607 , Reply# 26   8/26/2017 at 12:19 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

But since this is not likely to happen I'll stick with my trusty, dependable 07' Honda Civic, which has been the most dependable car I've ever owned, had it since new, 54.800 miles and it feels like a part of me when I drive it.


55K miles is nothing in today's world. I'd think it should be easy for many cars to hit that these days with few troubles. It's when you cross the 200K mark (or so it seems) that you see the differences between "Yes, the odometer is high...but it runs like new!" and "This thing is ready for the junk yard!"


I talked to a car dealer recently, and he liked selling older Hondas (older by his standards--say 2000-2010 range) because they still could have usable life even at 200K miles.


My father had an Acura Integra (based on the Honda Civic IIRC). The car didn't get obsessive must make this thing last! maintenance, but it lasted nearly 300K miles. A mechanic told me that with aggressive maintenance, he's seen those Integras go 500K+ miles.

Post# 954639 , Reply# 27   8/26/2017 at 15:48 by goatfarmer (South Bend, home of Champions)        

goatfarmer's profile picture

Nice ride, Rick!

Post# 954644 , Reply# 28   8/26/2017 at 16:00 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
I drive a 03 Mercury Grand Marquis

Which is as close to a old car as I can get without getting one, I take issue with old cars not being as comfortable as new...Big old Chryslers Cadillacs Olds and Buicks are MUCH more comfortable than anything today, and the cars of the 50s and 60s are much less likely to get you into an accident in the first place because you can see out of them so much better, the visibility in newer cars is terrible, get behind the wheel of say a early 60s Buick or Olds and look around, you can see all 4 corners of the car and can tell exactly where you are in the road.with new cars its guess work because you cant see anything!

Post# 954653 , Reply# 29   8/26/2017 at 16:46 by Stan (Napa CA)        
I'm the odd ball..again

stan's profile picture
I've never owned anything newer than a 1976 (not shown here)
So I don't know the difference.
When I ride with someone in a newer car, it's feels odd to me. I'm somewhat uncomfortable, not cuz I feel unsafe, just uncomfortable. Guess I'm use to the floating couch, and smooth ride. However, I also appreciate they way someone else's cars take corners, accelerates, and brakes, opposed to my old girls.
Seeing the crash vidieo above.. Has me wondering what I'm doing still driving these old things.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 954655 , Reply# 30   8/26/2017 at 16:49 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

The visibility in older cars is mush better than newer cars! A nice thing about old cars is you can fix then all by yourself, when it come to newer cars mine as well forget about it. You would have to spend a lot on buying all of the tools, and diagnostic equipment, while you just need the basic tools and knolege to fix an old car.

Post# 954658 , Reply# 31   8/26/2017 at 17:03 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

When I ride with someone in a newer car, it's feels odd to me.


I feel that way, too, and my newest car was a 1990s model...



A nice thing about old cars is you can fix then all by yourself, when it come to newer cars mine as well forget about it.


I have known at least one person who purposely bought cars from the 1970s because he could do the work.


Of course, newer car supporters will cite less need for repair, and less maintenance required. Valid points, although, of course, when something does go wrong it is more likely to cost $$$$.

Post# 954660 , Reply# 32   8/26/2017 at 17:15 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
I've noticed when a new car gets hit real bad how much stuff under the hood gets exposed...

I've seen radiator fans, portions of batteries and even washer fluid vessels (siphoning, anyone?) become exposed...

So, older cars w/ much more heavier metal (other than being heavier) are certainly crash-worthy, as well as maintain the right amount of stability on the road...

-- Dave

Post# 954666 , Reply# 33   8/26/2017 at 17:51 by rp2813 (The Big Blue Bubble)        

rp2813's profile picture

Hey Stan, you need to splurge on a set of the newly revived yellow-on-black plates for the Plymouth!  They look ridiculous on newer cars, but are right at home on pre-1970 ones.

Post# 954673 , Reply# 34   8/26/2017 at 18:12 by nmassman44 (Boston North Shore Massachusetts)        

nmassman44's profile picture
Well I have 2010 Camry that is paid for. I love it because it's reliable, gas efficient and rides well. Gets me from point A to point B with no issues. Even though it's a 4 cylinder engine, it doesn't feel like one and my car has plenty of balls to merge into the traffic we have here on the highways. You can pine and whine about these old cars of yesteryear, I will pass.

This post was last edited 08/26/2017 at 18:55
Post# 954674 , Reply# 35   8/26/2017 at 18:12 by nmassman44 (Boston North Shore Massachusetts)        

nmassman44's profile picture

Post# 954675 , Reply# 36   8/26/2017 at 18:14 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        
that is paid for

lordkenmore's profile picture

The very best kind of car.


"Paid for" is one reason I've never had anything but an old car.

Post# 954678 , Reply# 37   8/26/2017 at 18:28 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Even though it's a 4 cylinder engine, it does feel like one and my car has plenty of balls to merge into the traffic we have here on the highways.


All my cars have had 4 cylinder engines, and, apart from the 4 cylinder oil crisis era econobox, the engines have been adequately powerful. Of course, it probably helps that all but the econobox had a manual transmission. (Real men drive manual transmissions, and what's good enough for a real man is good enough for me. LOL)


I remember when Honda released a V6 for the Accord. i read a review. The reviewer's take: the V6 was more expenisve, less fuel efficient, and not a whole lot more powerful than the 4 cylinder engine. defense of Honda, 4 cylinder engines were often a hard sell in the US--unless gas prices were high...

Post# 954679 , Reply# 38   8/26/2017 at 18:31 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

I don't even know why people like to lease cars, it does not make sense at all. 'Leasing' is another word for renting!

Post# 954680 , Reply# 39   8/26/2017 at 18:33 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

I don't even know why people like to lease cars, it does not make sense at all. 'Leasing' is another word for renting!

Post# 954685 , Reply# 40   8/26/2017 at 18:58 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Yes, Sean, leasing IS renting and you pay for the period you use it and no more. Trade it in and get another or pay off the residual and buy it outright or just walk away at the end of the lease period. It all depends on peoples circumstances and what they can afford and what they want. I personally never have leased a vehicle and my 2013 Silverado was paid off the day I bought it.

  View Full Size
Post# 954691 , Reply# 41   8/26/2017 at 19:24 by sudsmaster (East of SF, West of Eden)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
I own seven four wheeled vehicles, ranging from a '50 Plymouth not unlike Stan's, to a '99 Chrysler 300M.

Clearly the '99 is much much safer than the 60's and 50's vehicles. Airbags, crushable space forward, antilock brakes, etc. It is also more reliable.

But of course I love the older rides, I just don't like to commute in them.

As for the driver being the primary safety factor, well, that depends. You can be safest driver in the world but if you're in any car and someone comes barrelling over the divider and hits you head-on, you'd have a much better chance of survival in a modern vehicle. And yes, bigger is also safer, in general.

If I were to sell all my vehicles and settle on just one, I'd get one of the new Chrysler Pacifica minivans. They handle much like a big sedan, are not too bad on gas (esp. the new plug-in hybrid version), and are quite comfortable. They can hold a lot, as well, for trips to the hardware store for building supplies or elsewhere for furniture. I understand with all but the driver and front passenger seats "stowed", it can also hold a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood (or whatever). Plus I could see them doing well for single or double car camping trips.

Post# 954694 , Reply# 42   8/26/2017 at 19:44 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"I don't even know why people like to lease cars, it does not make sense at all. 'Leasing' is another word for renting!"

Well, there are many ways to interpret that question.

I will choose to interpret it as if you were honestly curious about it.

What is there to say against "renting" or "leasing"? Sure, you don't own the thing when you stop paying the rent/lease and return the car/house etc.

But just like not everyone can own a house or even if they *can* afford to own a home they might not want to, there's a place for leasing a car.

Sometimes that means *physically*, like a place like Los Angeles is not ideal to lease a car if you are driving more than 12,000 or 15,000 miles per year, depending on your contract.

But for me, leasing was a no brainer. We were a one car home because we didn't need two for the most part. When it came time we needed 2 cars and it was obvious that that was a temporary condition, we ran some calculations.

We could buy a car, but that cost (when all was said and done) much more than leasing. We did not need two cars like most people do. Most of the time, the Subaru Outback is all we need, and it's paid for and we only needed another commuter car.

So, I leased a smart car for 3 years, at only $150/month. Why? Because if I walked a mile to the rental car agent down my street and got a car for a day it was something like $30-40 a pop, and I'd need to do that at least once a week, if not 2 or 3 times a week. Cabs and similar (Uber, Lift) are not much cheaper either for where I live and where I'd need to commute to.

So, for just about $150/month I had the car full time to do whatever and go wherever I wanted to.

I really loved the smart car and suggest people in similar circumstances at least go for a test drive before criticizing it. No, it's not a car for everyone, and it's definitely a car for good highways and cities, you do not want to drive thru a big pothole with it because if your tire gets mangled (no, it does not get mangled by driving over potholes all the time, just some combinations of particular speeds and sizes of potholes), you do not have a spare, you'll want to get towed. And no, I *never* once got a tire problem or any other mechanical problems in the 3 years I leased.

You also need to be prepared for the people who might be sick in the head out there -- way too many times I was stuck behind a car or worse, an 18-wheeler, going at 55 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone, and when I saw it was safe, I'd pass them at 65-70 mph and now those crazy folks (with possibly small dicks) who just couldn't bear that a small car zoomed past them would either try to tailgate me or pass me at over 80 mph. It was even funnier when the state police would stop them and fine them for speeding.

Anyway, I'm thankful that I live somewhere where we have so many choices so we can fit different people and styles -- much better than friends of mine described their experience in certain places where the state decided what was good for everyone and one had to pay thru the nose for a Trabant or similar.

   -- Paulo.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO earthling177's LINK

Post# 954697 , Reply# 43   8/26/2017 at 20:03 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

The Chrysler Pacifica is not a bad car, but unfortunately Chrysler is owned by Fiat now.

Post# 954698 , Reply# 44   8/26/2017 at 20:08 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
I'll stick with "new" cars.  Have had four since 1986.  Haven't had a car payment since 1989, which counts from finishing #1.

Post# 954716 , Reply# 45   8/26/2017 at 21:10 by sudsmaster (East of SF, West of Eden)        
Chrysler owned by FIAT...

sudsmaster's profile picture
What's wrong with that? Before FIAT, it was owned by Daimler Benz, and in between by Dan Quayle's investment group, "Cerberos", which is the name of the three headed dog of Hell.

I think FIAT has helped to improve Chrysler's offerings. The new RAM pickup in addition to the Pacifica. They did seem to sort of miss the mark with the Renegade and the Cherokee, though. The Charger/Challenger/300 trio seem to have improved significantly under FIAT's ownership, although all three models initially predated the acquisition.

What is odd, however, is that while FIAT is a successful international company specializing in small cars, it has fumbled trying to field a truly competitive small car in the US. The FIAT 500 family has been panned for its reliability woes, the larger 500L for a plethora of drawbacks. The Alpha based Chrysler 200 remake has fallen short in terms of mechanicals. FIAT announced it was going to concentrate on the most profitable segment, the SUV/Jeep, but I haven't really seen anything all that remarkable arise. Maybe the new Wrangler will do the magic trick of addressing its roadability and comfort issues and still keep the off-road crowd happy, but I doubt it.

But Chrysler had many of these same issues before FIAT took over, and without FIAT Chrysler would probably be a dead duck. Latest rumor I read recently is that a Chinese operation wants to buy the Jeep brand off FIAT/Chrysler. That would be a mistake for FIAT, I think, since it contains some of the most profitable models it sells. But it could allow FCAU to field a competitive Dodge branded SUV line and/or off-road vehicle. The Durango gets good reviews but can't shoulder the load alone; it needs to be supplemented with a small SUV and a larger luxury version.

Well, that's my take on it. I have seen FIAT's ownership as a net positive for Chrysler.

Post# 954724 , Reply# 46   8/26/2017 at 21:48 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Well, one thing has changed for the better since Fiat

panthera's profile picture

took over Chrysler.

Parts availability has improved enormously. I hate, hate, hate, loath and detest the local Dodge dealer. Loathsome people. Monsters.


Every part, whether it be a peanut lamp for the panel display or a $3.50 plastic clip for the door lock is 'not owner serviceable' and costs over $500 to be replaced by them.


So - I go to Laramie or Douglas or Fort Collins and the Chrysler/Dodge dealers there are happy to sell me the part for a few bucks, give me a tip or two and that's that.

Under Daimler, it was impossible to get anything out of MOPAR without a fight.


And, dahlinks - let's not forget how rah-rah ameriKa some were about Whirlpool buying out Maytag and not those awful Chinese (you know, the ones who promised to keep the production and jobs here in the US?). Yeah, how did that work out? Oh, right.


Post# 954726 , Reply# 47   8/26/2017 at 21:50 by Xraytech (S.W. Pennsylvania, near Pittsb)        

xraytech's profile picture
I'm split on cars. My biggest requirement is that it's an upper-end General Motors product.

I currently have a 2013 Cadillac XTS Luxury, I like the feel of driving the car, as well as the front and side airbags, front and rear parking sensors, ABS, traction control. I also love the amenities not found on older offerings such as the keyless start, panoramic moonroof, heated and cooled seats, heated steering wheel, and remote start.

The things I don't like are the standard 19" tires are very expensive, and you can't get aggressive snow tires for it, and secondly I'd like a larger car, however I realize this is the "new" full size.

I also have an older car, while its not as old as some, it's still old enough for Classic plates.

I have a 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. I love it's very large size, the 5.7 litre V-8, the floaty ride and the incredible feel and handling only found in a RWD car. It is new enough to have dual front air bags, but doesn't have traction control or ABS. It does have heated seats, however the other options I've become accustomed to weren't offered at the time.
This car has better visibility than my 2013, and I still average about 20 mpg.
It is a car I still feel safe in eve considering its age, and gives me the size and feel I like for daily driving to help keep the miles down on the 2013 since I average around 22/25k miles a year.

Oh and the 1993 has a hood ornament which is my most favorite accessory.

  View Full Size
Post# 954731 , Reply# 48   8/26/2017 at 22:04 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
That Silverado pictured earlier was the 5th Chevy truck I have owned. Only reason I traded my last '95 because the frame and gas tank rotted out with this crap they put on the roads. I came from a Ford family as my great uncle owned the dealership, he died, new owners screwed everyone and Ford would do nothing. I never had problems with my GM vehicles with many going well over 100000 miles with nothing other than normal maintenance. They say your mileage may vary but my mileage has worked just fine. I had big problems with not only Fords, but Dodge and especially Toyota and the dealers were no help to fix anything.

Post# 954732 , Reply# 49   8/26/2017 at 22:12 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

The only newer cars I don't mind are anything made between 1980-2010, anything newer than 2010 is not all that great, but there are some cars that are decent for what they are.

Post# 954735 , Reply# 50   8/26/2017 at 22:33 by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

My great uncle has a '99 DeVille. It just wafts down the road and sure is quiet, the powertrain is my favorite part even though it's the dreaded NorthStar, but having a quiet smooth V8 pulling you is a luxury I can really appreciate and sad we don't really get that anymore thanks to CAFE and cost cutting.
The handling and especially the steering feel (or lacktherof) makes me uncomfortable driving the car for long though. I would hate to have to make an evasive maneuver in it.

I guess the comfort is good, I never really got to drive that car much as this uncle lives in Texas. I didn't think the interior room was particularly impressive, and the seats don't really quite do it for me. It probably doesn't help that I'm comparing it to my modern car, a 2013 Nissan Altima with the zero gravity seats and a decent handling ride that also manages to provide an isolated floaty feel. I can drive that car for hours on end without much fatigue.

Post# 954743 , Reply# 51   8/26/2017 at 23:40 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture
Well, My work car is an '01 VW diesel Beetle with 245,000 miles on it that were all put on by me and I still love that car. My boat puller/winter weather driver is an 01 GMC jimmy with just over 100,000 miles on it. But I really enjoy driving our new Lincoln MKS in my profile pic. It's AWD, will go in ANY weather. It is a V6, but has more power than our previous 07 Cadillac DTS with the high performance version of the Northstar and won't start blowing oil when it gets 75,000 miles on it. It handles like a German car (have had 3 VW's, 1 Audi, and 3 Mercedes so I can compare) and is effortless to drive. We know it can handle a crash because Tony totaled our last MKS in 2016 by taking out a utility pole. Yes, the car broke into a zillion pieces, but the cabin was totally intact and he walked out alive in one piece. As much as I like some of the older Mercedes, Volvo, and VW cars, I think I'll keep our new Lincoln. It has blind spot monitoring, rear cameras, front and back parking sensors, and will call for help in an accident. It even has front seat butt massagers!

Post# 954746 , Reply# 52   8/27/2017 at 01:15 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

I learned to drive on a '74 Olds Custom Cruiser: 127" wheelbase, 233" length, 455 4 bbk V8, held 9 with the forward facing 3rd seat, back window slid up into the roof and the gate down under the spare tire. With its limited slip differential and a set of aggressive snows it was unstoppable in winter.

So yeah. I do feel comfortable when I sit behind the wheel and see a hood large enough to be a runway and the windshield & side windows are far from my head. I agree with Hans: In those aircraft carriers it WAS easier to know where all 4 corners were at all times.

The limited slip/ABS/stability control combo is important enough that I wouldn't want a car without it. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether the additional safety features outweigh the value of size and weight.

However, budget, driving environment, need to carry passengers, etc. often take priority over preferences. In 2008 I put $99 down on a Smartcar. Alas, my then present car died before I could take delivery of the commuter's dream.....

FFWD to 2012: I purchased the Nissan Cube many of you have seen. It holds 4 REALLY tall guys or 2 and a Maytag. I cruises silently at 80+ mph while giving 30+ mpg. It fits into amazingly small parking spaces. Jump to 2017: July 10th I mailed in my last loan payment, nearly a year early. July 24th an idiot came to a halt at a fork on a major highway, went right, changed his mind and went left cutting me off. I managed to avoid him but the van behind me wasn't so great at avoiding. Attached are pics of the result.

I did check out a SmartCar, but alas, those $150/month deals are not available in my area.

I decided on another Cube, I found a few and Louis (NewVista58) was kind enough to accompany me to check out the most likely prospect. Louis' automotive brilliance kept the salesman's babble to a minimum and a deal was struck. Last Saturday we picked it up.

It's 2 years older than my previous one, but with lower yearly mileage. I've only had it a week, but so far, so good.

In a perfect world I'd have 3 cars, I think: One would be a plug-in hybrid, AWD version of my Cube or a 4 door SmartCar for everyday use. One would be a big old boat in mint condition '77 Town & Country? New Yorker? The third? Some uber 4x4 and I've always had a weakness for the MB Gelandewagen.... However, I suspect at some point disproving accusations of "compensation" would stop being amusing and start being annoying....

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 5         View Full Size
Post# 954761 , Reply# 53   8/27/2017 at 06:41 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        

Now THAT I would drive every day!!!Had a 53 Plymouth and a 53 Imperial, Wish I had them back!

Post# 954772 , Reply# 54   8/27/2017 at 07:56 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Two reasons we aren't so keen on new cars

panthera's profile picture

1) With few exceptions, American cars put out from the early '80s through the mid-90's were AWFUL. Poor quality, horrid design, badly made environmental controls, cheap plastic.

2) Today's cars frequently look like those bars of soap you see in the shower just before you toss them and put in a new one. Slippery, yes. Pretty, no.


Quality has improved, but our collective memories have not. Older people who can afford brand new cars have noticed but people under 50 who are still driving cars from that era are so not impressed by their poor quality.


Safety - there's no question that it's better for the energy from a crash to be absorbed through destruction of the car's front end, motor, frame, etc. than in the passenger compartment. Ditto elsewhere. This is one big reason cars from the '90s or so on tend to crumple like tin-foil up to the firewall - and then stay together really well.


I've got a customer who owns a temporary holding yard (just like 'previously owned automobile' it's American for 'junk yard'). He lets me browse there regularly. From what I can tell, except for American trucks (the Republicans exempted them from most safety regulations), the best US cars to be in really bad crashes are the Subaru and larger GM models and the ubiquitous FORD/Mercury/Lincoln 'Crown Victoria'/Grand Marquis/Town Car.


Trucks are awful at roll-overs.


Then again, when people refuse to wear safety belts, it's all academic. I was out one night with a bunch of Wyoming queens a few years back. Only one wearing a safety belt. When they called me chicken, I said I'd rather decelerate at the same rate as the car with the car absorbing the energy than the other way round. They weren't impressed.


But, then - our generation filtered air polloution through our asbestos cigarette filters, so it was a silly thing to discuss anyway. 

Post# 954836 , Reply# 55   8/27/2017 at 12:47 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

I have to admit that I'm one of those who has trouble remembering that quality on US cars has improved. Part of me feels like it's 1985, and Detroit is busy cranking out garbage. And, worse, trying to sell "improved" quality through various ads. Cheaper to buy a catchy ad campaign than actually improve quality.


Part of my problem is simply that I do tend to be behind the times--newest car I ever even looked at buying was 1990 something. But also there is a factor that I frankly know few people who drive a Detroit car. A lot of people I know went Japanese in the 80s, and just refused to look back. Someone my parents knew bought some Japanese car just because it was a cheap, fuel efficient second car. Years later, they realized that at 80,000 miles that car had all its original parts, unlike any Detroit car they'd ever had. And that was that--they decided we'll buy Japanese cars from here on out.


Admittedly, of course, those Japanese cars probably weren't as good as they were later on... I remember talking in 2000 to a mechanic about a 1980 or so Honda he was selling that he'd gone over. He commented that 150,000 miles or whatever it certainly was on a replacement engine. I then told him that my father's then Acura had over 200,000 miles, and not intention of quitting soon. The mechanic said yes, the Acura could do that. But the early Hondas in his experience didn't have an engine with that sort of life expectancy.

This post was last edited 08/27/2017 at 13:09
Post# 954837 , Reply# 56   8/27/2017 at 12:55 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Then again, when people refuse to wear safety belts, it's all academic.


Thanks to some of my relatives, I saw the whole "I won't wear a seat belt!!!!" thing when I was growing up. I had relatives who preached that classic line about how much better you were getting flung free from a car that crashed or some such nonsense. I had other relatives that had no argument, but just never bothered wearing seat belts. Of course, they shut up and started using belts when it became a law with a fine attached.


One of my grandmothers was really bad about not wearing a seat belt. I recall us having to remind her constantly to put it on when she rode with us. Her last visits out here we had mandatory seat belt laws. Past that, it was just plain common safety sense in this area--I don't honestly remember a time when I didn't wear a seat belt. I think my parents started wearing them in the 60s.



Post# 954842 , Reply# 57   8/27/2017 at 13:09 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

Japanese cars are good, but the newer ones are cheaply made. In fact, all new cars are cheaply made! Cars from the late 1990's and early 2000's will be around forever, simply because they built really well.

Post# 954846 , Reply# 58   8/27/2017 at 13:17 by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Watch the video linked by Louis in Reply #7. That will explain the "You're better off being ejected from the car.." argument.

Not true today. You're much safer inside when accidents happen.

Post# 954893 , Reply# 59   8/27/2017 at 16:47 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        

twintubdexter's profile picture much as I love vintage cars, especially late 50's and 60's, I will refrain from making any comments concerning which manufacturer is better or worse. Even if there were a million responses posted here you would never get a majority to agree on one brand. Very old cars are probably not the best choice for commuting or  making lengthy trips from your home. As a retired oldster, I at one time made day trips to Los Angeles, San Diego or even Mexico. Now I rarely venture farther than the grocery store, and when I do I usually take my truck. 


The "old" cars for the most part remain in the garage. I do occasionally use the Cadillac instead of the pickup since it's so enjoyable to drive and us full-figured boys love those big doors. The Buick goes out for trips around the block and for local car club events. Both vehicles are air conditioned, a must here in the desert where today's temperature is slated to reach close to 120. I'd like to figure out a way to be buried in the Buick but I doubt they could dig a hole big enough. Do the cremate cars? 

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size

This post was last edited 08/27/2017 at 17:20
Post# 954934 , Reply# 60   8/27/2017 at 23:10 by Kevin313 (Detroit, Michigan)        

kevin313's profile picture
I enjoy the old and new.

My daily driver is a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica that is a comfortable ride and yet serves as a workhorse to schlep my vintage appliances and other collections around.

My occasional drive - during good weather- is my 1964 Dodge 440 sedan which I've had for many years. It has a 318 V-8, push button automatic transmission, power steering and brakes. While it lacks many safety features - it does have seatbelts in the front only - it is still a pleasure to drive and gets over 21 mpg.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 4         View Full Size
Post# 954936 , Reply# 61   8/27/2017 at 23:11 by amyofescobar (oregon)        

amyofescobar's profile picture
Just give me a '92 Honda Accord.

Post# 954946 , Reply# 62   8/28/2017 at 00:15 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

tnese are my favorite old cars. I am a big fan of old Fords.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 20         View Full Size
Post# 954949 , Reply# 63   8/28/2017 at 00:47 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        

twintubdexter's profile picture

Station wagons, once poo-pooed by some collectors, are really coming into their own now. So are cars from the 70's and 80's. It seems that only a few years ago they were just used cars. Maybe it has something to do with my getting older...rapidly.


What a wagon huh? 1959 Mercury from a show in Carmel CA.

  View Full Size
Post# 954952 , Reply# 64   8/28/2017 at 01:46 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
The worst car my family had was a 1970-something LTD wagon.

Post# 954954 , Reply# 65   8/28/2017 at 02:21 by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Station Wagon----Couldn't these be thought of as the first SUV's or "soccer mom" cars?When I was growing up we had a Rambler station wagon and an International Travelall.Don't remember what year they were.Rambler was red-International was white.

Post# 954963 , Reply# 66   8/28/2017 at 05:09 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
I'm a bit of a late comer, but

My current car is a 1975 Cadillac Sedan De Ville. The ride is wonderful, I don't know how those folks lost control in that LTD, cars this long are so predictable when the tail slides out that if you cannot correct it, that is your problem, not the car's. And to 2nd Hans' point about visibility, I can certainly place where the car is. With visibility like this you don't need blind spot monitoring nor rear view cameras. This car has been terrible for reliability though, I think I'm the only person to invest more than a penny into repairs and maintenance in 40 years. I think I'm going to sell it and buy a late '60s Cadillac, when build quality was better. It's a money pit at this point and the body is rusted out, I think it is time to cut my losses.

About the '59 vs '09 crash test, the IIHS cherry picked the '59 to chose the worst car for crash performance made after the 1930s. The '59 chevy used the X frame which was why the '09 caused so much intrusion combined with the fact that the '59 in question was a base model with straight 6 engine that wasn't wide enough to absorb any of the blow. If they used Fords for the comparison the '59 would have fared better as Ford kept the old ladder type frame later. Ford also placed their steering gear behind the axle thus you wouldn't have seen the steering column and dash come inward.

Post# 954966 , Reply# 67   8/28/2017 at 05:46 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Joe, Tony and I used to have an Eldo like yours but with a metal roof.  It was a nice car but developed the Northstar curse.  The worst car my parents ever owned was a 1984 Mercury Lynx wagon aka Ford Escort.  That thing was a lemon from day one.  It's also the car that made my dad swear off 4-bangers.  He will buy no less than a V6 now.  It made my mother never want a FoMoCo product ever again although my dad does drive a Ford Ranger. Mother likes Buicks/Chevys now. 


Here's what our previous Lincoln MKS looked like after the altercation with a utility pole.  Even as bad as the front was crushed, when I hit the start button, the engine started!  Of course it was undriveable.

  View Full Size
Post# 954971 , Reply# 68   8/28/2017 at 07:15 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Ill take a 64 Dodge

Once you take the wheel of a Chrysler product with torsion bar suspension and full time power steering....Nothing else is in the running..In my opinion of course..LOL I love being able to steer and park without any effort.

Post# 954978 , Reply# 69   8/28/2017 at 07:47 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
If you like cars

then you like cars! Old or new, cars can be fun.

I don't see why it is bad that Fiat SPA owns Chrysler now. They certainly have not hurt them like Daimler or Cerberus did.
Trucks, crossovers, and suv's currently out sell cars. Great Wall of China has expressed interest in purchasing Jeep from Fiat. Sergio Marccioni is retiring in 2018, and would like to close a deal before then. That would boost his departure package quite a bit, as it did for Bob Eaton when Daimler bought Chrysler.

Post# 954979 , Reply# 70   8/28/2017 at 07:50 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        

panthera's profile picture

I hope nobody was hurt! Wow! And, yes - that's what I was talking about, the cars today are designed to absorb as much of the energy as possible, leaving the passenger compartment out of it to the greatest extent possible. Crumple zones and designed in 'failure' points, energy absorbing materials, etc.


The Pinto as designed was no more prone to catching on fire than any other car of it's era. It was the last minute changes (a weakness at FORD which also hurt the 64 1/2 Mustang, though in a different way) which caused that vulnerability. 


I like my Chrysler Mini-Van, but am so unhappy with the local dealer that if anything major every blew up which required their special equipment, I'd junk it and buy something new from someone else. Anyone else, even sight-unseen off of Craigslist before I'd do business with them. 

Post# 954981 , Reply# 71   8/28/2017 at 07:56 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Mid-70's Cadillac

panthera's profile picture

We have a '74 waiting on a THM400. Sigh. While the quality is 10^27 better than that of our '89 Fleetwood Brougham d' Elegance (a YUGO was better put together than that piece of trash), there's no doubt that GM had already lost their way. There were still some great cars - the last Fleetwoods of that era were extraordinarily well built by anyone's standards, the '91,'92 and '93 (yes they still were on the market in '93, never mind what some books say) were great cars. Just, '89 and '90 - We spent more time under the hood and under the car and in the trunk than behind the wheel. Trash from start to finish.

Post# 954989 , Reply# 72   8/28/2017 at 08:38 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Vague recollection of an explanation a friend or I received at some point in the past for '75 more troubleprone than '74 or '76, given that no major modifications took place w/GM mid- and full-sized:

'74 - cars took leaded; emissions solved by higher run temps. Hence original overflow containers replaced by 1 gal clorox bottles. No other problems.

'75 - unleaded required; a slew of new emissions controls implemented; EPA satisfied by all sorts of new tech still effectively in beta stage - multiple problems.

'76 - problems of '75's new tech resolved.

Anyone get a similar explanation?

Agreed. 1980's were a decade best forgotten regarding quality control from Detroit products. One notable exception was my parents' 1986 Chrysler LeBaron GTS hatchback. 2.2l turbo I w/less aggressive of the 2 handling packages. ZERO problems until around 185K miles.


"The ride is wonderful, I don't know how those folks lost control in that LTD, cars this long are so predictable when the tail slides out that if you cannot correct it, that is your problem, not the car's. And to 2nd Hans' point about visibility, I can certainly place where the car is. With visibility like this you don't need blind spot monitoring nor rear view cameras."

Agree 110%.


I'm with Hans. Those old Chrysler products had the best balance of ride and handling. Effortless steering & parking, pillowy ride, yet you still knew exactly what was going on with all 4 tires at all times.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO warmsecondrinse's LINK

Post# 955012 , Reply# 73   8/28/2017 at 12:13 by petek (Ontari ari ari O )        

petek's profile picture

Interesting article in the paper the other day . The top selling vehicle in Canada for the past 20 years isn't a car at all, it's the Ford F150 followed by the Honda Civic at #2.  The F150 has also been the top selling truck for the past 50 years and unlike the US,, over 50% of Cdn F150's are sold with the V8 compared to just 30% these days in the U.S. 

Post# 955019 , Reply# 74   8/28/2017 at 12:52 by Xraytech (S.W. Pennsylvania, near Pittsb)        

xraytech's profile picture
Growing up the worst car we had was a 1987 Celebrity Classic sedan with the dreaded 4 cyl engine. It was traded in in early 1992 on a leftover 1991 Cabiler RS sedan. The odd thing I knew several people with Celebrities or the other A-body GM products that were trouble free and all ended up being high mileage cars. They all had either the 2.8 liter v-6 in the Celebrity or the 3.3 litre v-6 in the other models. I eventually owned a 91 Century that other than being bare bones basic was very trouble free

The pic below was exactly like the one we had except ours was gray.

Post# 955024 , Reply# 75   8/28/2017 at 13:02 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
The current issue of Hemmings Classic Cars has an article about the 1957 Oldsmoblie Starfire 98 convertible. My Dads' car was exactly like this one in 1957, only it was black, with a white top. This is the car we drove to Disneyland in in August 1957. It was a beautiful car. We drove the whole way to Anaheim from Richmond, Calif. on old hwy 99 with the top down. I remember that it was hot as hell! My Dad had a Desert Bag tied to the front bumper, in case we overheated far from a service station.

In 1958 when my Dad got his 58' Corvette my Mom got the 57' Olds and his secretary got Mom's 55' turquiose and white 55' Chevrolet Belair HT, a win-win for all concerned.

Here is a photo of Mom standing next to the 57'Olds.


  View Full Size

This post was last edited 08/28/2017 at 13:51
Post# 955026 , Reply# 76   8/28/2017 at 13:06 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Ah, the Celebrity brings back memories... It was one of the cars I drove in driver's training--and it was probably overall the best of the lot. The Ford Tempo was probably for me hardest to drive--the steering was too sensitive for me--and the Cavalier drove fine (I liked it the best), but was--for the school--a reliability nightmare. (One teacher told me they were due to get a new car the next term, and the Cavalier would go away since it was the oldest car. The moment it went away could not possibly come soon enough for him.)

Post# 955036 , Reply# 77   8/28/2017 at 13:29 by 48bencix (Sacramento CA)        
New but nostalgic design

This is my 2014 Ford Mustang.

It looks a lot like the original 1960's Mustangs and really drives well. I like rear wheel drive and most cars have front wheel drive. Rear wheel drive used to be the cheapest system. Then front wheel drive came along and was made almost universal. Now rear wheel drive is mainly for expensive cars, Mercedes, BMW, Camaros, Mustangs. The Mustang has the Shaker Stereo and a CD player.

Other interior design features are retro also. I like that the radio still has a volume knob and tuning knob. But you can link your phone and use voice commands also.

I had a 1968 Pontiac GTO convertible many years ago, but I like having the convenience of freedom from repairs that a newer car provides.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 955069 , Reply# 78   8/28/2017 at 17:09 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
No Whiplash Injuries for Me!

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
Driving in heavy bumper-to-bumper/stop-and-go traffic made me appreciate the sea of headrests in my car, behind where everybody has to sit!

(Whew, Thank God!)

-- Dave

Post# 955100 , Reply# 79   8/28/2017 at 19:25 by petek (Ontari ari ari O )        

petek's profile picture

I lost  most of my interest in cars after the GM downsizing of 1977. They were never the same after that and I'm so glad I bit the bullet and bought my brand new 75 Electra at the time because word was out by then that 76 would be the last year. So it was either now or never..  Post 77 model year cars do little to excite me. 

Post# 955103 , Reply# 80   8/28/2017 at 19:52 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Unfortunately where I live, I have to own a 4WD vehicle. Those that have experienced a winter in this neck of the woods would agree. I have an "81 Corvette that has rear wheel drive that I would gladly sell for the right price. The novelty has worn off.

  View Full Size
Post# 955116 , Reply# 81   8/28/2017 at 21:40 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
1964 Dodge 440

combo52's profile picture

Wow Kevin That Dodge looks great, If you are going to own an older car get one that is well built and designed like most Chrysler products from the late 50s onward.

Post# 955122 , Reply# 82   8/28/2017 at 23:00 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
In 1996

I drove my 62 Plymouth Fury from Lenoir NC to St Louis Mo, a 12 hour trip, there and back I used less than a quart of oil and got better than 18 mpg , driving 70 and better most of the way...a good old wide block 318 and a pushbutton Torqueflite is a hard combination to beat.

Post# 955124 , Reply# 83   8/28/2017 at 23:29 by Stan (Napa CA)        
The crash test that

stan's profile picture
Louis posted scared me! LOL
At least enough to have it on my mind the whole time I was driving today. As I drove around (50 Plymouth) not wearing a seat belt..
As I have thousands of times (car doesn't have them)...I realized that my driving habits are completely out mooted, and I haven't been fully aware!
I've adjusted to the car, and I've have these subconscious habits...not following as close as everyone else is, I'm anticipating stops....judging the speed of oncoming traffic, and not pulling out cuz I can't get out fast enough...Guess Ive been subconsciously aware of the limitations, but today I started paying closer attention. I also started to pay attention to how other people were driving, and for a moment, I felt that the world has jumped head, while I wasn't paying attention!
Just wanted to share these sudden self observations, and thank those who mentioned the safety issues.

  View Full Size
Post# 955132 , Reply# 84   8/29/2017 at 05:50 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Tony received minor bruises from the airbags and a seatbelt burn on his shoulder and neck!  The Microsoft Sync system in the car was linked with his cell phone and the car automatically began dialing through his phone list to notify us of an accident after it called 911...all by itself.

Post# 955143 , Reply# 85   8/29/2017 at 06:41 by brucelucenta (tulsa, oklahoma)        

brucelucenta's profile picture
As far as I am concerned, Toyota is the only car I would ever buy again. I have had bad luck with every vehicle made in Detroit that I have owned and would not buy another. The two Toyota's I have had in the last 20 years have been the best and most trouble free vehicles I have ever had. Old cars are cool to look at, but not so much to drive on a daily basis.

Post# 955161 , Reply# 86   8/29/2017 at 08:47 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
"made in Detroit"

means different things today. Jeep Grand Cherokee's are assembled in Detroit of parts sourced globally.

Toyota's are assembled in Kentucky with globally sourced parts.
A Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe were the same identical car mechanically.

Toyota ans Nissan both have suburban Detroit design and engineering offices in Farmington Hills, and Plymouth respectively.

Toyota has had as many recalls as GM has. Mazda 6's were built in Flat Rock Michigan until 2011. Good car.

In the 70's and 80's, more of the cars were made in Detroit and vicinity. Dearborn, Flint, Lansing, Pontiac, Saginaw, etc. Aside from rusting prematurely, they weren't that bad. Ford's Windsor engine plant ran a slew of bad 400 V8 heads that would leak by about 40,000 miles necessitating a valve job.

Cars are machines. Machines break Not even Lexus or Mercedes builds a perfect car. Eventually, they all have problems.
That said, buy what ever the heck you want. Most people lease and never have to worry about problems, but they always have a payment.

Post# 955354 , Reply# 87   8/30/2017 at 20:46 by cfz2882 (Belle Fourche,SD)        
prefer older

My active duty cars are 1977,1981,1982,1985,1998,2003,2007-all "old" by today's standard,and the 4 earlier ones "malaise era :) A few things I dislike about recent cars:
-throttle by wire
-plastic headlights
-plastic engine cladding
-plastic cooling system parts
-"piped in"(or even fake) engine sound-WTF ?! :)
-more prone to hail damage than "old skool" cars

Post# 955368 , Reply# 88   8/30/2017 at 22:39 by cadman (Cedar Falls, IA)        

cadman's profile picture
Stan, I hear ya. The past two years I've been daily-driving my '59 Catalina, no seat belts, 4-wheel drums, 389, AM radio playing the oldies during my commute. It's a unique experience. I did upgrade to a power booster with dual chambers for safety, but they're still drums and you need to plan accordingly.

This year I've enjoyed my 1988 Olds so much (Touring Sedan, FE3 suspension and buckets) that the Pontiac only comes out on Fridays. To me that seems like a modern car, until I ride in something recent. Huge A and B posts, intrusive headrests, uncomfortable seats and complete isolation. It really takes the fun out of driving, or riding as a passenger for that matter.

  View Full Size
Post# 955373 , Reply# 89   8/30/2017 at 23:48 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

You can daily drive a two, or four door sedan that would have been used as a car back in the day. The only old cars I wouldn't daily drive would be muscle cars (sports cars).

Post# 955378 , Reply# 90   8/31/2017 at 01:59 by Stan (Napa CA)        

stan's profile picture
It's beautiful.
My aunt had a 59 Bonneville . Very unique dash on those. I remember the "passing gear" as she called It!
Miles ahead of the 50 Plymouth! Bet it rides like a dream,

Post# 955379 , Reply# 91   8/31/2017 at 02:05 by Stan (Napa CA)        
Just remembered

stan's profile picture
As the Bonnevile didn't have AC.. She had this swamp cooler thing that sat over the transmission hump. It plugged into the cigarette lighter, and she filled it with ice. It had a fan switch and blew out cool air.
I've never seen one since, and don't know what they were called. Anyone know?

Post# 955402 , Reply# 92   8/31/2017 at 07:39 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Im a Chrysler guy, but still LOVE old Pontiacs and Olds.

2 of my Aunts had 53 Olds and My Aunt Jean and Uncle Henry had a 61 Catalina, a 63 Super 88, a 64 Cutlass, a 68 Delta 88,a 70 Delta 88 custom, and a 72 Cutlass, so I grew up with those cars, We had a 48 Plymouth, a 53 Plymouth a 60 Ford Galaxie, a 66 Cutlass a 71 Delta 88 custom..455...I remember that one well, it would FLY!

Post# 955406 , Reply# 93   8/31/2017 at 07:49 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
B. Danielson

panthera's profile picture

I hear you. So hear you - your list:

-"global"parts (Makes me want to throw up when the car makers play their 'we're soooo American' game.

-throttle by wire (It is getting better, to be honest, but then - how could it get worse?)

-plastic headlights (And this is safer when you hit a pedestrian at 40mph exactly how? Like drowing in 30 feet of water instead of 300 is better?)

-plastic engine cladding (Would, again, be OK if it were a good quality plastic, not recycled ABS)

-plastic cooling system parts (Because 250F coolant is no problem to have spraying all over the place, right?)

-"piped in"(or even fake) engine sound-WTF ?! :) (Sigh. I know. It's false advertising like those guys in the '70s who wore those gold neckchains with the numbers '9 1/2 or even 10'. Divide by two and you're still probably being overly generous.....

 -more prone to hail damage than "old skool" cars (I live in Cheyenne. Hail capital of The Known Universe. Tell me about it. Our '74 Sedan deVille just gets the dust shook off by hailstones which leave holes in newer Ford 150s.

Post# 955445 , Reply# 94   8/31/2017 at 11:47 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

Newer cars are built for obsolescence, and all newer things are built for obsolescence.

Post# 955450 , Reply# 95   8/31/2017 at 12:21 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        
Re: reply #94

ea56's profile picture
Hello, but most models of automobiles have been built for planned obsolesence since at least as far back as the 1930's, its the American corporate model for doing business.

There are good and bad things about both old and new cars, it boils down to what is personally most important to the buyer.

I happen to love old cars,and would gladly have one as my daily driver. I like the styling, comfort, simplicity, visibility and drivability. Now for safety features, new cars can't be beat.

But somehow, the touch screen controls for climate control and audio on the new cars seem like an unnecessary distraction and they compromise safety when the driver needs to look down at these screens to make a simple adjustment that on an older car can be made easily by feel, without the need for the driver to take their eyes off the road.

Just my two cents worth.

Post# 955452 , Reply# 96   8/31/2017 at 12:23 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        
Hail damage

lordkenmore's profile picture

Well, it's vitally important to have cars easily marred by hail. What would those car dealers do if they couldn't count on a few hail storms each year that can lead to a thrilling opportunity of a special sale that is carefully crafted to look like the buyer is really getting a great deal?!?

Post# 955458 , Reply# 97   8/31/2017 at 12:49 by Iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        

iheartmaytag's profile picture

I have to say that I love a '65 Mustang and a 56 T-Bird as much as the next guy, but I side with new cars and their safety equipment.


Yes people can site the fact that their Daddy's 59 Cadillac took a head on crash and only got a dent.  Well did ya mention that the extremely ridged body may have not sustained any damage, but it did transmit every bit of the crash energy to the passenger compartment.  A Passenger compartment that didn't contain seatbelts, padded dashboards, or laminated glass.


There is just something comforting when you are seeing the front end of a Ford F-150 coming through your windshield and this bag explodes out of the dashboard and protects you as the three point harness is holding you away from harm. 


Sure a newer car will sustain much more damage than one of older vintage in a crash.  But remember every piece that breaks, crushes, or flys away is dissipating that crash energy away from it's occupants. 


Then there is drivability.  Nothing worse than a cold blooded Chrysler with a carbureted  engine starting on an icy morning.  That problem was mostly solved with electronic fuel injection.   Six speed automatic overdrive transmissions, automatic four wheel drive.  air conditioning, all things I'm thankful for.


There are so many reasons to love the newer cars.  With that said, has anyone ever noticed that the Fiat 500 bears a strange resemblance to a Compact C-9 Vacuum cleaner? 


This picture is what my Jeep Grand Cherokee looked like after the Drunk in the F-150 hit me head on.   I crawled out with a fractured sternum, but I was able to crawl out.

  View Full Size
Post# 955461 , Reply# 98   8/31/2017 at 13:33 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

With safety in mind... I think I might have mentioned talking to a mechanic about an old Honda from about 1980. At that time, I was considering buying it since it was A) available and B) fit my limited budget. But examining the car, and driving it around the block, quickly killed my enthusiasm. One issue was how primitive it felt--although I could live with that. But the car really didn't feel safe--and the reason I was buying was because my old car had been totaled when someone smashed into it. I just thought "old econobox" at the time...but I wonder now if a lot of the feeling wasn't "econobox" and just plain "this is the way cars typically were in 1980."


I also recall that car didn't run particularly well cold. Someone with a Honda of that vintage said it was that way with his car, too.

Post# 955463 , Reply# 99   8/31/2017 at 14:02 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
Hey Eddie,

twintubdexter's profile picture

I sure hear ya regarding touch screens in cars. I suppose the ones that are integrated into new cars are perfectly fine, but I recently had one installed in my 20 year old Cadillac and in many ways using it is akin to texting while driving. My age is definitely showing when I say it's complicated and involved. There's way too much there. Navigation (so I won't get lost going to the grocery store) and simple radio/CD I understand. I even can figure out Pandora with the cell phone and bluetooth. But beyond that it gets crazy, and the instruction manual on a disc is 92 pages long. The steering wheel controls help a little. I feel like a dummy.  


I still say if you do distance driving on a regular basis then a newer car is much better. Older cars are fine for scooting around your area. There are people that live here in the Coachella Valley that commute to the Inland Empire and even Los Angeles. I don't think using a very old car would be wise. The 1957 Thunderbird I sold last year, aside from being a "girly" ladies' shopping car that I hated, was a death trap on wheels, even with the factory seat belts. I would never drive that car on the freeway. My Buick is 52 years old and even though I've had it on the freeway (it's very sea-worthy) I wouldn't drive it around on a daily doesn't squeeze into parking spaces that well either and even the smallest door ding would make me go ballistic. 


Land yachts are a cross between parking and "docking"

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 955464 , Reply# 100   8/31/2017 at 14:29 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
I love your 65' Buick Wildcat! In 1972 I had a very hot older boyfriend that had a 65 Buick Wildcat, it was the same color as yours, but the interior matched the exterior and his didn't have a vinyl top. I recall that we went to the drive in movies to see Alfred Hitchcock's, "Frenzy" in that Buick and had some fun during the intermission in that roomy front seat, LOL.

Buicks are my favorite old cars, they are beautiful and I love the way they drive.

I agree with you about commuting in an older car though. But if I had a old car that I had gone through carefully to be sure that everything was in top shape I wouldn't hesitate to drive it on a long trip. They are the most comfortable cars for long distance auto travel.

This post was last edited 08/31/2017 at 15:53
Post# 955490 , Reply# 101   8/31/2017 at 16:40 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
My Fusion has voice control of pretty much everything (can do some things, for example with music/radio, via voice control that isn't provided by buttons).  Some functions are also duplicated on buttons on the steering wheel and an auxiliary screen on the dash vs. the center console.

Post# 955495 , Reply# 102   8/31/2017 at 16:54 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Another thing

I hate about new vehicles, especially foreign ones, the seats are made for small framed people, not me at 5ft 10 and 240 pounds, my Marquis has big soft seats that fit, I drove my Aunts new Ford Fusion the other day, it drives ok, but the steering is way too stiff to suit me and the seats are too small, The most comfortable car as far as seating goes , that I ever owned was a 65 Olds Ninety Eight Luxury Sedan, it would get up and go too.Donald is nearly 6 foot 3 and his head rubs the roof on many new cars.

Post# 955496 , Reply# 103   8/31/2017 at 16:58 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
As far as

Chrysler products being cold natured, I don't agree, GM products were much worse, at least in my experience, my 53 Plymouth and my 62 Plymouth were about the best cranking cars I ever owned, the 65 Olds was the COLDEST natured vehicle I ever owned.But boy would it go when warmed up! 425 RocketV8 with 360 horsepower.

Post# 955503 , Reply# 104   8/31/2017 at 17:54 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
Probably posting too much...

twintubdexter's profile picture

1965 Oldsmobiles....oh weren't those such very nice cars?

  View Full Size
Post# 955506 , Reply# 105   8/31/2017 at 18:29 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
The only old car I own is now is my 36 year old Corvette. Quite advanced for its year, nice smog pump, 190 HP from a 350 V8 and one of the first to come out of the Louisville KY factory that should have been an '82, but Crossfire Injection didnt work, mine had a 4bbl. It was still an '81, even though it was built in August 1981. My '13 Silverado has 355 hp from a 5.3 V8 (327) and the truck is so much easier and comfortable to drive than the Vette.

Post# 955508 , Reply# 106   8/31/2017 at 18:33 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

Old cars are much more comfortable than newer cars, and can acomidate anyone of any height, and have power steering that is effortless, while newer cars have have steering that stiff and is comparable to not having any power steering.

Post# 955513 , Reply# 107   8/31/2017 at 19:45 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Sean, ironically we have the same birthday, but I was 18 in 1972. I have owned 36 vehicles since. Yes, many old vehicles do ride like being on the living room couch. But those of us who now dont want to mess with old vehicles because newer ones are (somewhat) easier to deal with. My Vette owners manual is less than 50 pages, my Silverado is 1000 pages plus and tells you nothing but caution, warning, danger. I told the dealer to set everything on Auto and it works fine, going on 5 years now. Vette rides like a buckboard, Silverado rides like floating on air. I will gladly ride in somebody elses old vehicle, but I am too old to mess with that on any old vehicle any more. Tired of climbing under, covering myself in crap. I'll pay the dealer to fix it. So far it has been oil changes and thats it.

This post was last edited 08/31/2017 at 20:36
Post# 955516 , Reply# 108   8/31/2017 at 20:14 by rickr (.)        

rickr's profile picture
We are driving this 61 Oldsmobile up to Michigan in the morning. I am an antique dealer, now that I am retired, and I have a load of antiques in the trunk. I have a booth in one of the antique malls up in Allen Michigan. The Olds is great to drive at freeway speeds, and even has cruise control.

Post# 955517 , Reply# 109   8/31/2017 at 20:19 by rickr (.)        
61 Super 88 dash

rickr's profile picture
Dash showing factory a/c and cruise control. (Dial at left of dash area) BTW, this car has over 200,000 miles on it.

Post# 955518 , Reply# 110   8/31/2017 at 20:24 by brucelucenta (tulsa, oklahoma)        

brucelucenta's profile picture

What, no cd player?!!!!

Post# 955521 , Reply# 111   8/31/2017 at 21:12 by rickr (.)        

rickr's profile picture
CD Player??? What is that, Bruce? Classic Disk? No, no phonograph in this one. :)

Post# 955523 , Reply# 112   8/31/2017 at 21:46 by cadman (Cedar Falls, IA)        

cadman's profile picture
Rick, beautiful Olds! Funny, the gridwork on the brake and accel remind me of the '62 Starfire grille. Clever!

Speaking of road warriors, this is the cross-country appliance hauler. '87 Scottsdale setting out for Wisconsin tomorrow pulling the Shasta reissue. Gold vinyl benches, vinyl floor, crank windows, but cold A/C. And I swapped out the mono-AM radio for a Delco AM/FM (how deluxe!). I also added rear air shocks for handling situations like the one in the pic ; ) It's also equipped with a Pull-Rite hitch which pivots about the rear axle so it tows like a 5th wheel. Never any sway. Purrs like a kitten but loves the ethel.

  View Full Size
Post# 955524 , Reply# 113   8/31/2017 at 22:15 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

I agree about touch screens. I find them incredibly annoying. WTF were they thinking? "Yes, let's redesign the controls so the driver has to take is eyes OFF THE ROAD in order to change a station or adjust the a/c.

I agree about newer cars being safer. I'm particularly fond of the ABS/limited slip/ stability control combo and I like the idea of air bags. But these things come at a price and Hans makes a number of good points.

In order to give the ILLUSION of more room, most newer cars have some combination of:

The seats are too low to the interior floor of the car.
Even if the seat rises, you often can't raise it enough before your head hits the headliner.
There's no steering column! While tilting wheels seem to creeping downmarket, telescoping ones do NOT. End result: The steering wheel is too far away and too high AND your knees are up around your ears.

Even at just 6'0", I'm too tall to get comfortable behind the wheel of many cars. I admit I have an attitude problem with this. Practically everything about my body is 80th-85th percentile. If something is too small, too low, too short, etc. for me, THERE IS A DESIGN PROBLEM. FULL STOP.

One is less likely to run into these problems in older cars.

Personally, I like hitting the break and feeling what the tires are doing. Not that every old car gave this info, but the older a car is, the more likely you are to get it. Same applies to steering.

NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) induce driver fatigue. It's gotten better in recent years, but for a long time many manufacturers seemed to think ANY sensory input equalled information about the road. End result? Your ears are assaulted while your're being jostled and shaken about (and not in a good way) and you STILL have no idea if you're hydroplaning or not or if your wheels are about to lock up because the steering wheel and the brake pedal don't tell you anything; they're just vibrating like mad!

There must be at least a few cars that offer a reasonable compromise. My Nissan Cube is pretty good, all things considered. Ford Crown Vic? Chrysler 300?

Post# 955525 , Reply# 114   8/31/2017 at 22:30 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Nice Suburban Cory. Todays Suburbans look somewhat similar in length but much more rounded. Still use more gas towing things. Neighbors tow a travel trailer to AZ every year with their 2500 Silverado and get mid teens for mileage. Pay for convenience, I guess. My Silverado can tow any boat out of this lake and not break a sweat. Newer vehicles do seem to use less gas as this '13 uses much less than my '95 did.

Post# 955527 , Reply# 115   8/31/2017 at 22:57 by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

I'm 6'0 and my '13 Altima with a sunroof gives me plenty of headroom. It also doesn't have anything touchscreen, no nav, no blind spot monitoring or forward collision warning. What it does have for safety is ABS, TCS, stability control, lots of airbags and a rear view camera which is a requirement in these modern cars with zero rear visibility. For luxury/convenience it has leather, power drivers seat, heated/steering wheel, DEATC (don't get me started on how much auto climate control drives me mad), and a Bose sound system.

I wouldn't want a car with anymore features than that as I feel it just gets in the way of the driving experience, blind spot monitoring and all that crap just beeps at me long after I'm aware of what's in my blind spot etc. All they're doing with that is priming car buyers for autonomous vehicles, something of which I am and am NOT looking forward to. The only autonomous feature I like and want is adaptive cruise control for those hellacious drives on overcrowded interstates where anyone holding a constant speed is but a mere pipe dream.

The only thing I wish I had done differently with that car is that I'd gotten a V6 instead of the 4 cyl. The 4 cyl power is ok but I truly abhor the sound of 4 cyl engines and the vibration drives me insane.

Post# 955537 , Reply# 116   9/1/2017 at 01:58 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Re Beautiful 61 Olds

That olds is perfect, one thing you didn't mention, if you get in a tight spot and need to get out of someones way that old 394 will make it JUMP!Only one problem with the 61 thru 64 was the Slim Jim trans.,but its OK if you don't drag race it..if you do watch a teenager I had a 61 and a 63 , the 61 was a Super 88 and the 63 was a loaded Starfire...I kept the 63 in the transmission shop..LOL. But man would it GO!

Post# 955579 , Reply# 117   9/1/2017 at 09:57 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

ABS, TCS, stability control, & lots of airbags -- Great!

Blind spot monitoring? Not so much. Still in beta testing, IMO. My recent Nissan Rogue rental that. Thrice weekly I had a 1/4 mile to cross 6 lanes of highway traffic from far left to far right on my way home. The system would beep and flash at me right when I had to concentrate the most....

Speaking of the Nissan Rogue, I have a 6'7" friend who fits into my Cube with no problem. He was barely able to get into the Rogue, let alone get comfortable. comparing the two he was amazed the Rogue was so much bigger on the outside yet so much smaller inside.

Automatic Climate Control? No, really, I can handle turning a temp knob myself...

Back in the '80's I had a friend who'd inherited a '61 Mary Kay pink Olds Dynamic 88 convertible. I was the only one in our crowd she'd let drive it. Why? She approved of how I handled my own '74 Olds Custom Cruiser. I always volunteered to be a designated driver as long as I got to drive her car home from the bar, lol.

Post# 955583 , Reply# 118   9/1/2017 at 10:31 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
Love old cars to the extreme...

firedome's profile picture
that we've had over 150 of them as a curbside amateur under-the-radar dealer/flipper. 1930s to mid 1970s US and also many British sports cars. . Growing with them, we also daily drove full size US '60s and '70s cars almost exclusively as our family drivers and boat and horse trailer pullers: Chrysler and GM wagons and 4 doors, up until the late '90s full sized Olds, Buicks and Mopars were our favorites.

We sold our non-power steering '58 Olds last month, so the only old car now will be the '68 Chevy Caprice 4 door hardtop Sport Sedan we're in the process of buying as we speak.

But we no longer want old cars as daily drivers, as wonderful as they are - since the late 90s it's been Japanese SUVs: Montero (1) Trooper (2) Xterra (2)... we really like the Xterra due to full truck frame, it's extreme capability in snow and off road, much needed in NY and VT, it's carrying capacity, modern safety features, the superb Nissan VQ V6 (0n Ward's 10 Best Engines for over 10 years, longer than any other) , but foremost it's simple easy to use non-touch screen analog old fashioned knob controls. And it will still get well over 20 mpg on our many trips to the north.

Post# 955594 , Reply# 119   9/1/2017 at 11:37 by petek (Ontari ari ari O )        

petek's profile picture

No more "tune-ups", thousands of miles between oil changes and for us in the rust belt , years and years of no rust worrying. Those are three significant features of new vehicles.  Still when my two wheeling days are over, hopefully not soon, I'd love to get myself another big land yacht for summer driving fun. 


I'm very happy with the Forester and doubt I'd ever go back to a car as my daily driver. I'm just shy of 6' and with the seat at full height I still don't touch the ceiling. It's easy to step in and out of with my bad back and visibility from the drivers seat is way better than the competition.  I love the adaptive cruise control,, that's going to be a must-have from now on.  I only wish it had rain sensing wipers like my old Mazda 3.. those were great.  It's odd how Subaru doesn't offer that option in N.America yet but when I checked their UK website, they have it there. 


Post# 955627 , Reply# 120   9/1/2017 at 16:15 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"Old cars are much more comfortable than newer cars, and can acomidate anyone of any height, and have power steering that is effortless, while newer cars have have steering that stiff and is comparable to not having any power steering."


Sean, nice world you live in.

Each generation comes along and says the *same* thing, but they refer to different decades of cars, just like almost everyone agrees that Saturday Night Live was funny some time ago and it's not funny anymore, but no one agrees on which season(s) are/were funny and which season it stopped being funny.

This nostalgia colors things. It gives listeners the impression that *everything* was *much better* back then, when very few things could be further than the truth. Some features were really nice. Some cars survived, but not most -- it's like people who say all songs from 1930's were better or that all classic music was better, but they were not alive to even have experienced that, their experience of classical music or songs from the 30's is the little that was good enough to survive, not the 90% of crap they used to have just like it's now for us.

Here's a little tidbit for you: Tom Selleck may be a bit taller than most people, but he's not the tallest person around either.

Magnum PI was supposed to have a *Porche* as the car -- Selleck couldn't fit in the car for love or money, so they switched it to a Ferrari. So much for accommodating people of any height. "Oh, frack, those are cars from Europe!" you say? I have friends who were barely a couple of inches higher than 6 feet, and they had to *squeeze* to fit in certain model years of Mustang, Corvette etc.

You know what? My relatives who were born in late 1800's/early 1900's used to say that younger people were useless, because they liked "new cars" and couldn't possibly drive "a good car from way back": they couldn't start a car by cranking up (with the implication that people were either too weak or would break a bone or two from the kick back), they didn't know how to set the distributor correctly depending on the car speed, they did not know how to use a manual choke, and they would just die in the rain because they couldn't crank the wipers manually, and also that they'd destroy a "good old car" first thing because they did not know how to double clutch, "imagine that, some new cars have even the 1st and 2nd gears with synchromesh!". You wouldn't want to get them started on when automatic transmissions, power steering and power brakes showed up.

I say it's all bullshit. No one is more of a man than someone else because their cars are more automatic. Any one of us could easily get used to a Ford Model T, and in fact, I had relatives from way back then who were women and cranked the engines to start themselves, drove cars with manual transmissions etc.

Just for Sean's information (and others who may not be up to date), there are more manual transmission cars all over the world than automatic transmission -- in most of the world, young girls learn to drive and get their drivers licenses using a manual transmission car.

I do not think we are in any danger of getting the cars more and more automated so people will get used to the idea of self-driving cars. Self-driving cars will show up one way or another, despite protests of people who think their dicks might fall off if they enter one -- they'll share the roads with other cars for a while until they get better several generations later, the thing that might make ordinary cars disappear is not a lack of people who want to drive, but the fact that at some point self-driving cars will be good enough to get into way less accidents than people, then the insurance for a self-driving car will be really cheap and super expensive for a "conventional" car.

As for "everything was better back then, you people are too lazy and probably not good enough drivers", LOL, we'll talk again when I see you driving a car during heavy rain without any "automatic" features, like my relatives used to do in early 1900's -- it's easy for me to complain that the rain sensor in such and such a car is better than the other one, of that the intermittent wipers on this car is better than the other one because it's speed sensitive, or this automatic transmission or that power steering.

Let's remove all of that and see who likes old cars.

The truth is that newer cars are safer, but it's not so much that safety is new -- most of the things we have now (limited slip differentials, AWD, 4WD, power steering, power brakes, ABS) etc showed up over 50 years ago, it's just that they used to be very expensive back then, and some of them did not work as well as the current versions. But a car from 1940's or 1950's shares *way* more with current cars than a car from 1920's.

The thing that makes me laugh at some here is that they are repeating stuff without any experience, they heard someone say it and they just parrot it. I have way more respect for people like Hans, who has *actual* experience with the cars than the parroting folks.

As for me, no, I did not *drive* some of the cars I'm talking about, but my uncles and relatives *did* and I was a passenger on their cars. One particular uncle had as a hobby buying any old cheap car he could find, spruce it up a bit during the 3-6 months it took him to get bored with it and then sell it to the next person and get another one. I lost count of the number of cars from 1930's to 1950's he had (this was during the 60's to the mid-70's) while he claimed no new cars were any good. Eventually, the energy crisis happened, he sold all the old cars and got a "modern" car. My older relatives were more stubborn, they kept their Ford Model T and Chevys from the same era until they got too old to drive. While I can now laugh it off and tell people it was "interesting" riding in the cars with them during heavy rain, water pouring into the car from all kinds of different places and the driver sometimes had to ask a passenger to crank the windshield wiper for them to be able to switch gears, at the time, when I was a kid, I was scared for my life, particularly at the lack of effective brakes -- some of those cars did not even have hydraulic brakes (not talking about power brakes, just what we call today "ordinary" brakes) and the brakes were actuated by a rod and you had to have good muscles in your legs to step hard enough on the brakes to make them work; and yes, some of my aunts drove those cars, there are men who go to the gym nowadays who have weaker legs than my aunts, deal with it.

There is one thing I can say about cars like Model T and similar aged/build cars: they seemed to be better at climbing up/down rocks in places that had no good roads, like farms. Most cars couldn't even go to places like that, you'd need a truck with high clearance or something built specifically for off roading. Then again, they couldn't go to the same farms when it rained, the tires were so not very wide and they'd get stuck in the mud. Oh, well.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 955631 , Reply# 121   9/1/2017 at 17:06 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
My maternal Grandma was probably one of the first women to drive an automobile in the state of Kansas. Her father owned a hotel in Sharon, Kansas and he bought one of the first cars in that little town in 1910, a 1910 Hupmobile. He taught grandma how to drive it when she was about 12. She got a bad spiral fracture of her arm once from cranking it when it backfired.

Then later on when she and grandpa got married in 1919 they had Model T Fords until about 1930. Model T's didn't have a clutch, they had a planetary transmission that was the forerunner of the modern automatic. There were 3 pedals, one for reverse in the middle, one for forward on the left that you held all the way out for high and to the floor for low, halfway down for neutral and the right pedal was a brake of sorts. It took a great deal of skill to get the hang of the Model T.

My grandma would load all four of her girls into the Model T and drive by herself 50 miles on rutted dirt roads to visit her parents, and never thought twice about it. Then in 1930 grandpa got a Chrysler with I believe a 4 speed transmission, ( but 1st was so low that it was seldom used in day to day driving, and was rather driven like a 3 speed). Anyway, it had been several years by then since grandma had driven the Hupmoblie, so grandpa tried giving her a crash course in driving with a clutch. The tensions reared and poor grandma became so unnerved by grandpa's lack of patience that she gave up driving and never drove again. What a shame, since she had been so independent, and one of the first women to drive in her state.

I've included a link below about how to drive a Model T. It took some skill.

Now we have cars that are driveless and in the not to distant future they will probably be commonplace. It will be wonderful for the elderly and disabled that can't drive, but seems a shame that people are fast becoming so dependent on technology to drive. I'm glad that I learned to drive in the old days, when we even had to use hand an arm signals for our drivers license test and parallel park.


Post# 955633 , Reply# 122   9/1/2017 at 17:12 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

Newer cars are safer, but in reality all cars new and old are dangerous!

Post# 955659 , Reply# 123   9/1/2017 at 21:41 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        

Is deadly when an idiot or drunk is at the wheel!You can get killed in a Volvo or Mercedes just as easily as a Corvair if you hit a semi truck head on at 85 or 90 miles an hour.Remember Princess Dianas death....Even a TOL Mercedes couldn't protect her.The best rules of thumb are, don't ever drive too fast for conditions, and don't tailgate!People blow me off the road when its raining, but several times I have seen them in a ditch on down the road....I have been driving 36 years and have never had a speeding ticked....I deserved plenty as a teenager..LOL

Post# 955663 , Reply# 124   9/1/2017 at 21:48 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Cars are like appliances

We all like different things, for instance, John Lefever hates Frigidaire Radiantube units, I love them,I hate Maytag washers, but Bob ORear loves them, and on and on, we all have our preferences, I don't want a self cleaning oven or a self defrosting refrigerator, but most guys here think that's crazy...I am wrong many times and try to be man enough to admit it, John warned me about Kenmore electric ranges not baking great, I had to prove him wrong, well, I didn't, he was 100 percent correct, I should have listened..LOL..The point is, why argue and get mad over an opinion, I love Chrysler full time power steering and power drum brakes, others cant stand them, that really doesent bother me, drive what you want, cook on what you like etc lol

Post# 955671 , Reply# 125   9/1/2017 at 22:29 by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        

iheartmaytag's profile picture
Actually, in Princess Diana's Mercedes it did the best it was designed to to, and the only restrained passenger survived.

Post# 955808 , Reply# 126   9/2/2017 at 23:34 by sudsmaster (East of SF, West of Eden)        
Old Hondas...

sudsmaster's profile picture
I remember when the Honda Accord first came out. I scouted around and asked for opinions. One that stuck in my mind was that while the car itself ran and handled well, at least when new, the various components (like interior stuff) was cheap and tended to fall apart.

Later I learned that in Japan, the government tries to force the citizenry to constantly buy new cars by mandating planned obsolescence via stringent inspection requirements after a few years. Such as, all the rubber in the car has to be replaced, whether or not it needs it. My suspicion is that the Japanese car companies of that day knew that either all the rubber would be replaced after a relatively short period, so why install rubber components that would last a lot longer? Turns out the cost of replacing all that stuff (not only rubber) and getting inspected is so expensive that most Japanese would simply trade in their few years old cars and buy new ones.

These days however there are Japanese cars and trucks that seem to last forever, at least in the USA. Perhaps Japan, Inc. realized that a Japan-spec vehicle would not last very long in the USA.

Me? I bought a '64 Valiant in '76. Still have it. I can't say it's been trouble free, and it's been parked for the last 17 years, but with a little work it could be on the road again. Part of my retirement list of things to do.

Post# 955855 , Reply# 127   9/3/2017 at 06:56 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

I'm 6ft tall but only 145 pounds.  I have a hard time finding cars that fit my BLB...bony little butt.  Tony had a '94 Lincoln Town Car when we met.  It fit fine.  He later got a 2000 Town Car that didn't fit me at all.  Then we had a 2003 that fit fine.  My grandmother had a '92 Mercury Grand Marquis that she bought new.  She had a stroke in 2007 and she sold it to me for a work car.  It rode and drove fine but again, the seat hurt my BLB and my back.  My 2001 VW Beetle commuter car's seat fits me better than just about any car I've had myself....and I've had my share since I was 16...from my little 1987 Chevy Nova (Toyota Corolla) that only had two options on it...AC and rear defroster...all the way up to our MB S500, Caddy's DTS and Escalade, and our new Lincoln MKS (the MKS fits me beautifully but if I put the seat at a good height for my long legs, my head will hit the ceiling due to the sunroof.


But I personally prefer small cars since I drive in lots of traffic and park in cramped parking decks at work.  Much easier to handle.  I think it's funny how much power today's cars have in much smaller engines.  My MKS V6 has only ONE horsepower less than my MB S500 had in it's 5.0L V8.


Post# 955876 , Reply# 128   9/3/2017 at 09:36 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Safety and old vs. new:

Dad told us safety was in mainly between our ears. Keep your eyes on the road, and scanning the mirrors before you change lanes. Also that some accidents happen because drives execute a lane change or turn then change their minds before it is completed.

Technology; Old cars were heavier, with more around you to protect you, but they had no crumple zones to absorb impact. You had farther to travel to the wheel, dash, or glass, but the impact was harder when you hit them. Seat belts are still the best device. Air bags do what a larger interior used to do with seat belts.

My grandmother had a 1963 Fairlane. Once she stopped quickly and I flew clear from the back seat and hit my forehead on the metal dash. I think locking seat backs came out around 1969. Inertia controlled by '73, along with inertia seat belts and retracting shoulder harnesses.

Post# 955881 , Reply# 129   9/3/2017 at 10:30 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"I think it's funny how much power today's cars have in much smaller engines."

Greg: this is rather easier to explain/understand -- for years (decades really), the thing people associated with engine power was how large the cylinder is and how many cylinders the engine has. But that only reflects the state of the art at that point back in time, when we didn't have certain metal alloys, treatments, the right lubricants etc, so engines had to be big to develop a certain amount of power, and the engine speed (rpm) was lower to avoid wear and tear.

What you are seeing nowadays are "small" engines that run at much higher speeds than engines of old and thus develop the same power -- also, transmissions are now much different from yesterday's transmissions, in that they accept a much higher rpm input and transfer the appropriate speed to the wheels, new lubricants make it possible.

If you ever want to see engines that are impressively powerful and small at the same time, take a look a turbo-fan (jet) engines and Wankel engines. Of course they are not practical for cars currently, for a variety of reasons -- the Wankel engine is very expensive to produce if you want a durable engine (or conversely, at moderate prices it doesn't last long) and the jet engines can produce an annoying high-frequency noise that even when we solve the other immediate problems (super-hot exhaust, pollution control etc) the public tends to object to their use in cars. Don't laugh yet, about 25 years ago there were even prototypes of cars that used a small jet engine to generate electricity to then run an electric motor and charge batteries.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 955883 , Reply# 130   9/3/2017 at 10:40 by cfz2882 (Belle Fourche,SD)        
'74 seat belt interlock

my '74 chevy nova and and I think all all other '74 models had a system where you had to sit in the seat and buckle the seat belts in the correct sequence or you could not crank the car :)A little safety nudge from the "malaise" era :)There was a little "computer" containing a couple IC chips under the driver seat for the system.System was dropped for 1975 models,and setup was disabled on my nova when I bought it in 1986...

Post# 955892 , Reply# 131   9/3/2017 at 11:56 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
'74 seat belt interlock;

was only a switch in the seat wired to the ignition switch, no i.c or computer.
My '74 caprice had it, and I simply unplugged the wire under the seat.
Speaking of govt. safety mandates, have you noticed most new cars have no bumper space between the fascia and trunk, hatch, or grille protection at all hardly?

Post# 955907 , Reply# 132   9/3/2017 at 13:05 by kenwashesmonday (Haledon, NJ)        

I drove a lot of Ramblers over the years. Mostly 1964-1969 Rambler Americans, and a couple of Rambler Classics. These cars always served me very well. The last one I bought, a 1965 Rambler American, cost me $1,000 and I drove it to work for 14 years. But now, I'm getting lazy in my middle age and no longer want to spend time in the driveway doing maintenance. Also, certain parts like new windshields are no longer available for these cars.

In July 2013 my partner and I bought a brand new Kia Soul for $16,500 and we're very happy with it. The dealer changes the oil and rotates the tires for only $40. This is the first car I paid more than $1000 for, and I love it, but I do miss my Rambler.

Post# 955938 , Reply# 133   9/3/2017 at 14:49 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Re power of new cars

Yes, they do produce more power for the size engine, but there still is no feeling on earth like putting your foot into a big old four barrel and hearing a big v8 moan!

Post# 955945 , Reply# 134   9/3/2017 at 15:47 by DaveTranter (Central England)        
'Old Vs 'New'

All my cars have been 15-30 years old at the time of purchase. My current daily driver is a Vauxhall (Opel) Corsa B, 1.5 naturally-aspirated diesel model. I am hanging on to it because it is about as 'modern' as cars get (1995 vintage) before they have a plethora of unnecessary (and very expensive to repair/replace) electronica added for no apparent gain. No, I don't want 'central locking', No, I don't want electric windows, electricaly adjustable/heated/massaging seats, or any of a dozen other gizmos fitted as 'standard' on newer cars, just waiting to go faulty the moment the warranty expires, something I refer to as the 'Bladerunner' effect ;-) .. This vehicle does have a computer/ECU, but on this variant it's only function is as the timer for the preheater (glow) plugs. I have no objection in principle to ABS as a safety feature, though I have never driven a car so equipped, and can't shake the mental image of trying to perform an 'emergency stop' and the dashboard display popping up an "Are you Sure?" message while the computer holds the brakes off!!
In this country, it is illegal to watch television while driving, and any such screen must be placed out of the driver's sight.... So why do a lot of 'new' cars now have dashboard displays (Touchscreen or otherwise), which can only serve as a distraction from the road??
Safety on the road starts and finishes with competent, alert drivers (yes, I'm a Motorcyclist, too!!). Anything which distracts a driver/rider, or which gives them a (false!) sense of security has to be a 'bad thing' IMHO. I live on a small, overpopulated island, and I am frequently physically and mentally drained at the end of even some quite short journeys. As I say to friends who have commented on this over the years 'If you're not worn out at the end of a journey, you're clearly not paying enough attention to the road!'

Ok... Rant over ;-)

Dave T

P.S. Bosch electric power steering. I have no idea how this system ever passed the relevent safety tests (though I assume only new units were ever tested). A friend's Son recently passed his driving test, and bought a used Fiat Punto, seemingly a good 'first car'. He was very lucky that when the power steering suddenly and without any warning failed as he was negotiating a junction, it was on a Sunday morning and the road was empty, so no collision(s??) occurred. My investigation revealed that in order to shave 'a whole eighth of an inch' off the length of the servomotor, the soldered connections to the motor brushes are filed flat to the circuit board in order to fit under the motor end cap, inevitably resulting in fatigue fractures to the solder after a few years of temperature cycling. These are death traps just waiting to happen!!! BTW, Transit vans have a suspiciously similar looking servo motor. I have good upper body strength, and long driving experience, and I struggled to get that Punto home without the power steering working... I REALLY wouldn't want to be in charge of a fully loaded Transit on a busy road when the same kind of fault occurred!! :-O :-O

Post# 955946 , Reply# 135   9/3/2017 at 15:49 by petek (Ontari ari ari O )        
The V8 sound eveyrone loves.

petek's profile picture

Apparently the  BMW's and others are so quiet that they have a synthesized engine growl that is piped thru the audio system . Listen to the two videos, one with and one turned off.  


Post# 955965 , Reply# 136   9/3/2017 at 19:13 by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

If I bought a car that plays fake engine noise on the speakers I would disable it right away. I would rather hear something less pleasant sounding that's real than something that sounds good but is fake.

Post# 955973 , Reply# 137   9/3/2017 at 19:58 by Imperial70 (******)        

Speaking of govt. safety mandates, have you noticed most new cars have no bumper space between the fascia and trunk, hatch, or grille protection at all hardly?

I think the reason for less protection of the automobile is that the insurance companies dictate what needs to be protected. Hospital costs are more expensive these days so it makes more sense to protect the occupants than the auto. Years ago they were more focused on expense to repair a damaged vehicle.

Post# 955985 , Reply# 138   9/3/2017 at 20:59 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
The reason for no space between the bumper and the body

combo52's profile picture

Has nothing to do with safety, and only a little to do with goverment regulation, It is done for aerodynamics to get better fuel mileage, it is also done for styling because most buyers like the gap free look.

Post# 956001 , Reply# 139   9/3/2017 at 23:59 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

I dislike curvy cars! Boxy cars will always have more room, and it is easier to style a boxy car, rather than a curvy car. I really hope the 2050's 2060's and 2070's is more like the 1950's 1950's and 1970's all over again, and I hope cars are like they one were.

Post# 956006 , Reply# 140   9/4/2017 at 01:46 by tolivac (greenville nc)        

"Boxy" cars won't meet current fuel milage standards.Gas turbine engines for cars-this was tried and also locomotives-Gas turbines-jet engines need to be operated at near their max or max power to be efficient.In aircraft,Newer ships,power generation,natural gas compressors-pumping-these applications meet the engines needs.A car or locomotive the speed range is too wide for max efficiency in a gas turbine engine.And these are EXPENSIVE-too much for a car-the engine can cost more than the car!

Post# 956008 , Reply# 141   9/4/2017 at 02:43 by sudsmaster (East of SF, West of Eden)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
On the subject of turbo fan jet engines, the main reason why they are not practical for cars is that they are rather low torque at lower rpms. Think the old slushomatics of early Chryslers. Sure, if you rev one up until it howls, then you have to deal with the howling. And the transmission/reduction gear would take a beating.

Modern engine/trans combinations are more fuel efficient while still offering decent performance by having far more gear ratios than older three speeds. Nine and ten speed trans are becoming common. This allows the car engine to stay in its sweet spot, keeping revs and fuel consumption down while still offering acceleration when needed. So now modern automatics can be more fuel efficient than manual trans, although a stick shift is always more fun to drive IMHO.

As far as limited space between bumper and grille/trunk lid, etc. I believe Chrysler more or less led the pack with that approach in the late 1990's. They had adopted advanced computer design technology, along with AMC's platform approach, and were able to bring new somewhat trend setting models to market a year or two before the competition.

Aerodynamics and styling are one reason. But another reason is that government regulations do indeed affect bumper design. I think it was back in the 70's or 80's that the feds started requiring car mfg's to design the cars so that they could withstand low speed collisions (like maybe less than 5 mph) without suffering a major repair expense. The way modern cars seem to handle this is to use a Styrofoam form for the jbumper, with a very thin vacuformed shell over that. On top of that, they make the shell relatively inexpensive to replace. But it does impose some design constraints and has been a big gripe for fans of European cars who find they can't buy them here in the USA because the foreign car company doesn't want to go to the bother and expense of ruining their sporty design to meet American regulations. It's probably less of an issue today, what with the foam filled bumpers, but I believe it is still a gripe for some car nuts.

Post# 956096 , Reply# 142   9/4/2017 at 13:02 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
If this thread were a book...

twintubdexter's profile picture would look like an old Webster's Unabridged Dictionary...thick! People love to chat about cars which is a good thing. I certainly don't need to be concerned about vehicle styles in the year 2050 and beyond. 2020 is starting to look doubtful. When it comes to design, give me angles. The cars I grew up with from the late 50's and thru the 60's, a time that even as a little kid, if a 59 Pontiac breezed by you knew exactly what it was. Most of today's cars look very similar to me...4 doors (how awful) and have the same shape, like a cube from your Whirlpool Ice Magic. 


A few years ago I was eyeing this beautiful "angled" 1965 TOL Mercury Park Lane convertible that was for sale. I still had that blasted 57 Bird and the "suddenly too small for comfort Corvette" so I had no garage space. It was before I bought the Wildcat. I still regret it.

  View Full Size
Post# 956106 , Reply# 143   9/4/2017 at 13:52 by petek (Ontari ari ari O )        

petek's profile picture

Yes, back in the day if you were driving along or just looking a block or two ahead and glimpsed a car passing by it was almost automatic you'd know what it was. Nowadays I have to be pretty much up close and personal to read the name on it with a few exceptions

Post# 956109 , Reply# 144   9/4/2017 at 14:01 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Back in the "olden days" where styles changed yearly, you could simply look at the tail light. It always said SAE and the year.

Post# 956116 , Reply# 145   9/4/2017 at 15:07 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
The fact remains...

Unless you can afford a big Benz or a cars are bORING, Just sit behind the wheel of a 60 Chrysler or a 59 Olds and look at the dash! Chrome, lights and pushbuttons, I dislike todays cars for the same reason I dislike new appliances...A refrigerator SHOULD have chrome trim and a porcelain lined interior..NOT PLASTIC! same for a stove!

Post# 956117 , Reply# 146   9/4/2017 at 15:07 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

back in the day if you were driving along or just looking a block or two ahead and glimpsed a car passing by it was almost automatic you'd know what it was.


That seems like almost a century ago... Sigh...


Certainly by the 80s, it seemed like there was often little difference between divisions of Detroit car makers. Is it a Chevrolet or a Cadillac? Better check the emblem on the front just to be sure. LOL


It's gotten to a point where it's hard for me to tell different manufacturers apart--at least in the 80s I could tell a Ford from a Chrysler with one glance. Although my present difficulty might be in part to the fact that I'm not paying a whole lot of attention to new cars.


Post# 956121 , Reply# 147   9/4/2017 at 15:13 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Tail light lens model year desigantion;

Yes, it denoted the model year unless the identical lens was used for consecutive model years.
Examples: '71, and '72 Ford Custom 500, Galaxie, LTD. '73, and '74 Fords also, and '75, 76 77's, 78's.

Post# 956126 , Reply# 148   9/4/2017 at 15:27 by Xraytech (S.W. Pennsylvania, near Pittsb)        

xraytech's profile picture
So, just curious here, what kind of car(s) do you own Maytag85?
I don't believe you have told us what you're driving.

Post# 956184 , Reply# 149   9/4/2017 at 22:25 by pulltostart (Mobile, AL)        
How about this one?

pulltostart's profile picture

1976 Cadillac right here in Mobile with 38,000 miles.  Beautiful color combination!  More photos in the ad.



CLICK HERE TO GO TO pulltostart's LINK on Mobile Craigslist

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 956187 , Reply# 150   9/4/2017 at 22:28 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

I drive my mom's mini van, but I have a 1986 Chevy Camaro Z28, and I am putting a Chevy 350 small block V8 in it, can't drive it until I move to Idaho because it would cost more money to put all of the smog equipment on it, and the registration is VERY expensive in California. I just like how simple old cars are, and you can fix them yourself. When it comes to newer cars, it is impossible to do the work yourself on a newer cars, but you can do all of the work on a old car.

Post# 956236 , Reply# 151   9/5/2017 at 10:39 by gizmo (Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Au)        

I love cars old and new.
I drive a new VW Golf wagon, its now about 2 months old and I love it. It has some safety and convenience features really impress me, such as self-parking for reverse and bay parking; blind spot monitoring; autonomous emergency braking; release of rear seats from triggers in the rear luggage area. It is also exceptionally comfortable, suits my creaky jointed body. It isn't perfect - the auto stop-start is a bit clumsy in operation at times; despite being a larger car, the windows and luggage area are both smaller than my previous car, a 2007 Peugeot 307 wagon.
Also, official claimed fuel consumption is 5.4 litres per 100 km, I am getting more like 6.5. I usually get close to the official figures in previous cars. In the Peugeot I averaged 5.2 so this is a big increase in fuel cost. (Peugeot was a 1.6 litre turbodiesel with 5 speed manual trans, the Volksy is a 1.4 litre turbo petrol with 7 speed DSG and start/stop.)
I love the modern safety features and low fuel consumption, but I miss the character of my favourite cars I've owned in the past. My top handful would have to be Renault 20 2 litre hatch from 1980; the Citroen GS 1220 from 1974; The Leyland Australia P76 from 1974; and the Mitsubishi Magna wagon from 1994. (Magna was called Diamante outside of Australia.) I also owned a series of Austin and Morris front wheel drive cars from the late 1960s, my first was an Austin 1800 which had amazing comfort and road holding for its day, but it was tired when I got it and a blue cloud followed wherever I drove it.

My favourite? Possibly the Citroen GS, or possibly the P76. I was also genuinely sad to say goodbye to the Peugeot when I traded it in a few weeks ago. I owned it for 10 years, the longest I have ever owned a car. I did 220,000 km in it.


Post# 956476 , Reply# 152   9/7/2017 at 00:23 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

I will only like old cars, and old cars only. I don't like today's ugly, boarding, cheaply made cars. The cars that are made currently will not be on the road in 10 or 20 years from now, they will most likely be in the junk yard. New cars are made for obsolescence, while the old cars can be fixed easily and last forever!

Post# 956481 , Reply# 153   9/7/2017 at 01:48 by mieleforever (SOUTH AFRICA)        
@ gizmo

I hope that you enjoy many years of driving pleasure in your new VW. I had a 2011 Passat 1,8 petrol, also fitted with the DSG. I really loved the car but the DSG not so much. We had endless troubles with the DSG and VW kept on saying we were driving the thing in a wrong manner. The GEarbox had to be opened up two times in the plus minus 50 000 km that we had it. When at about 75 000 km it started to act up again we just decided to get rid of it. Maybe we had a dud, but there was apparently a lot of problems with said DSG gearboxes. So just keep an eye out, our problems started at 25 000km.

Hopefully you will be spared.

Regards and safe motoring!

Post# 956513 , Reply# 154   9/7/2017 at 10:36 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

There is a lady in Orlando Florida who has a 1964 Mercury Comet Caliente 4 Door Sedan with over 600,000 original miles, and it has been her only car since 1964. If you take really good care of your cars, it will last you a life time, if you don't care about your cars, they won't last that long at all.

Post# 956538 , Reply# 155   9/7/2017 at 13:28 by cfz2882 (Belle Fourche,SD)        
'86 z28

those are cool cars-I have an '82 z28,bought it in 1990 with ~81000 miles,now has ~265,000 miles :)

Post# 956546 , Reply# 156   9/7/2017 at 15:49 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
Something else that I appreciate about a new car that I even consider a God-Send:

Low Tire Pressure warning--in which case, I needed to fill ALL FOUR! (& got it done at General Tire)

-- Dave

Post# 956559 , Reply# 157   9/7/2017 at 18:18 by cfz2882 (Belle Fourche,SD)        

my '07 GMC canyon has that-it is handy,was suprized my base model truck had it-mine only tells there is a low tire,more modern TPMs probably tell which tire is low :)

Post# 956562 , Reply# 158   9/7/2017 at 18:59 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
My '13 Silverado gives you the warning, which tire and how low it is. I had a nail in one that lost a couple pounds a week. Once it got to a certain level, it warns you. When I bought it, I told them to just set everything on auto and what needs to warn me does. Back up sensors work great but you need to still watch all your mirrors, especially your rear view one inside.

Post# 956592 , Reply# 159   9/8/2017 at 01:44 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

A video that gives a 40 year overview/review of a 1970s Cadillac. I have some nitpicks, but it's interesting. Although I feel a little old--some of the features on this car which are new to the reviewer are things I remember, like a floor mounted high beam switch...


This post was last edited 09/08/2017 at 02:25
Post# 956593 , Reply# 160   9/8/2017 at 02:02 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Seriously??  None of that stuff he's ranting & raving about is odd to me.

Post# 956594 , Reply# 161   9/8/2017 at 02:23 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

I've watched some of his videos before.  He could pass for Jay Leno's son!

Post# 956604 , Reply# 162   9/8/2017 at 08:37 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
"77 Eldorado"

the convertible was the most expensive. The msrp of a 1975 was over $10,000.00.
8,950 were built that year.

A downsized 1979 custom built Eldorado convertible was featured on the tv game show Sale of the Century.

Post# 956606 , Reply# 163   9/8/2017 at 08:48 by Iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        

iheartmaytag's profile picture

Convertibles were and became even more expensive because 1976 was the last production year of a factory convertible.  After the 1976 model year, a convertible was obtained by sending a newly produced hard top to another factory where the top was removed, the frame reinforced and a rag top installed.  This process added heavily to the sticker for those wanting a convertible. 





Post# 956655 , Reply# 164   9/8/2017 at 16:47 by cuffs054 (GA)        

LordK, your comment made me laugh! Floor mounted dimmer who doesn't remember them. Rear door handles? Even the Toronado had them. Loved the "light sentenials" on the fenders and the brake light monitor he totally missed. Ah, those were the days. The trunk in my 70 Olds 98 was so deep I couldn't reach the spare tire nut without climbing in the trunk. I don't know what he'd think if ever came across the floor mounted radio station selector.

Post# 956712 , Reply# 165   9/9/2017 at 00:56 by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

Honestly none of those features struck me as odd and yet I've never driven a car older than a 1990 and haven't been in anything older than the 80s. Guess I just pay attention.

My Altima tells you what each tire's pressure is as well, comes in real handy when you're driving down the road and it suddenly goes flat from a nail so you know which tire it is before getting a chance to get out and look at it.

Post# 956724 , Reply# 166   9/9/2017 at 04:40 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

My DTS and Escalade both had individual tire pressure monitoring also but my Lincoln MKS doesn't tell which tire.  It's ok though because it has a couple of other options the previous two Caddys did butt massagers!  I wonder if Doug DeMuro has ever checked his blinker fluid?

Post# 956732 , Reply# 167   9/9/2017 at 05:30 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

"10 Things We Miss Most About Old Cars"


Post# 956733 , Reply# 168   9/9/2017 at 05:33 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

A follow up video. "10 More Things We Miss Most About Old Cars"


Post# 956735 , Reply# 169   9/9/2017 at 06:37 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
I still catch myself

Stomping the floor to dim the lights, stupidest thing they ever did was move the dimmer switch from the floor where it belongs!

Post# 956739 , Reply# 170   9/9/2017 at 08:29 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
"dimmer smart switch"

GM called it when they moved it integral with the turn signal lever.
My '77 Grand Prix had it. My ex had a '78 Phoenix which did not. After we went through yanking the V6 out of it that had a rod knock, dropped in an Olds 260 V8, the floor dimmer switch shorted out and burned up all the wiring. The car would have burned up, bu I cut the battery cable as it was beginning to burn and it went out. We sold the car for the good engine and trans.

Post# 956773 , Reply# 171   9/9/2017 at 13:48 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

dimmer switch from the floor where it belongs!


I wonder where the best location would be? I am so locked into having it on the turn signal--every car I've ever driven has had it there--but I can see one argument for having it on the floor--it can be operated while the driver's hands stay fully on on the wheel. Although floor mounting could be bad if the driver needs to work a clutch at the same time he or she needs to dim a light.


I remember my parents got their first car with turn signal dimmer switch in the early 1980s. It may have been that switch that prompted my father to comment he wondered what would happen when a modern switch wore out and need replacing. Although, interestingly, all the switches still worked (and were original) when the engine on that car blew.


Other interesting memory: a few years ago, a bus I was riding had headlight failure. The bus was basically a large van, and as I recall the driver was able to stagger back to the garage by holding the high beam on (I think probably a "flash to pass"position).

Post# 956786 , Reply# 172   9/9/2017 at 15:07 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
Lord Kenmore...

twintubdexter's profile picture

I remember my dad's "fishbowl window" Chevy truck had the starter on the floor let alone the headlight dimmer. If your parent's first car was an 80's then you're a very young person...I hate you wink



Kudos to you Norgeway

Post# 956801 , Reply# 173   9/9/2017 at 16:22 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
I preferred the headlight dimmer on the floor too! Also, I think that the old sealed beam headlights that were the standard for years were better too. All cars used essentially the same headlight bulbs. They were universally available, easy to replace and they didn't blind oncoming drivers like these new halogen headlights. And additionally, there were no plastic covers to get cloudy, yellowed and hazey, requiring either repair or replacement.

It used to be that the controls on cars were fairly standardized too. It was easy to get into another car and you pretty much knew where all the controls were and how they functioned. There is much to be desired about the old cars.

And Joe, I too remember the starter being on the floor of some cars too. I learned to drive stick in a 39' flatbed Chevrolet truck, and the starter was on the floor. There was also a throttle on the dash so you could set the throttle and drive without using the gas pedal. This was helpful for farmers and ranchers when they need to use the truck in the fields, like for dropping off bales of hay.

And don't even get me started about visibility, or the lack thereof in the new cars. I love my 07' Honda Civic, but the blindspots are the pits! I've never owned a car with worse visibility, from all angles!

Post# 956804 , Reply# 174   9/9/2017 at 16:40 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

If your parent's first car was an 80's then you're a very young person...I hate you


Not necessarily. What if one's parents were 80 at the time of purchasing their first car? LOL And you hate me? Join the special "We Hate Lord Kenmore Club" which is large, and growing with each and every last one of my posts. LOL


Actually, I probably worded my comment above poorly. They bought first cars in the 60s, but this 80s purchase was the first that had a turn signal dimmer switch.

Post# 956824 , Reply# 175   9/9/2017 at 19:49 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
Lord Kenmore....

twintubdexter's profile picture

You know I was just kidding of course...and maybe they just waited to get the senior discount.

Post# 956829 , Reply# 176   9/9/2017 at 20:11 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
I never think to ask for a seniors discount, although I am old enough, oh well, part of getting older, you forget to ask and then its too late. I have had cars with dimmer switches on the floor, my first, a 63 Rambler. I do like the little left finger dimming or bright is much easier.I wished you had a blind them switch for those jerks that have to put 12 high beams on to blind you.

This post was last edited 09/09/2017 at 21:16
Post# 956830 , Reply# 177   9/9/2017 at 20:43 by countryguy (Astorville, ON, Canada)        

countryguy's profile picture
The dimmer switch on the turn signal stalk is so easy to use and within easy reach but with auto headlight dimming, I never have to manually dim the lights anyway :-)


Post# 956849 , Reply# 178   9/9/2017 at 23:45 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Same here Gary.  You still liking your MKC?

Post# 956901 , Reply# 179   9/10/2017 at 09:45 by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Re: #159

I lasted until 6:36 when he commented that the floor-mounted dimmer switch was bizarre. That was it. Done.

Hello? Which is more likely to be occupied with another driving task when you want to hit the high beam switch, your left hand or your left foot?

It's both funny and sad that it never seems to cross his mind that there might've been an actual reason things were designed/built the way they were. I'm not saying the reason would've been a good one; my issue is that it doesn't dawn on him that there might've been one at all.

Yes, I know I'm overreacting. That mindset grates on me more and more the older I get. There's a name for it, but it escapes me at the moment. But here are two quotes I heard that represent it. One I heard live, the other on the news:
"Well, she can't be famous because *I've* never heard of her."
"Obviously it's not actually a problem because if it were *I* would have known about it."

Agree totally with the comments above calling "Bullshit!" regarding "women drivers". IMO, any time a woman isn't as good as a man behind the wheel it's because she hasn't had the same exposure, training, practice, etc. than the man/men she's being compared to.

Post# 956903 , Reply# 180   9/10/2017 at 09:50 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Lincoln MKC, etc.;

Friends of ours just leased an MKC. So far they like it. They had an MKX. They wanted the same payment. Retired on a budget. It's smaller of course.

We need a new(er) vehicle soon. Considering a 2016 Chevy Traverse, 2017 Colorado crew or max cab V6, etc., etc. Not opposed to other than GM. Son is Ford employee if we go new. They don't get a huge discount.
We don't drive a lot of miles anymore, so we could lease again, but insurance is higher on a brand new anything.

Post# 956923 , Reply# 181   9/10/2017 at 11:11 by countryguy (Astorville, ON, Canada)        

countryguy's profile picture

I have not had any more issues with the MKC since my last round of problems in March/April. I do love the styling, comfort, conveniences and ride. I can drive for 10 hours and not have an aching lower back or thighs. I will have to bring it in shortly to have my last free oil change and service. There is another TSB for the heated seats which I will get done as well. The first TSB was supposed to improve the length of time to warm the seats but it really didn't help. Hopefully this 2nd TSB will make an improvement. I am also going to have them look at the exhaust tips which are starting to rust. I know someone else that had the same issue with the exhaust tips and his entire exhaust system had to be replaced because it is all one piece.


Post# 956934 , Reply# 182   9/10/2017 at 12:41 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"Which is more likely to be occupied with another driving task when you want to hit the high beam switch, your left hand or your left foot?"

That made me laugh out loud.

The first wave of cars had *no* headlights. The second wave had, I'm not even sure of the name anymore, carbide lamp or acetylene lamps, perhaps? The second and half wave had as an *option* an electric headlight -- if memory serves me right, the control was on the dashboard.

The third wave of cars came with headlights. Electric. That is more or less when the "standard" transmission showed up -- that referred to how the gears were arranged, so people who knew how to drive one could drive a similar one in another car. They were all manual transmissions.

So, for good or bad, until automatic transmissions showed up, your left hand was busy with the steering wheel, your right hand was busy with the gearshift and your feet were *all* busy with the accelerator, brake and clutch. Using a foot switch at night to signal other cars was not as easy or as safe as some here are making it to be, it was just that foot switches were cheap and easy to install. I've driven cars with high-beam foot switches and manual transmissions and it's a big pain in the ass at night. (Incidentally, professional drivers that race automatic transmission cars say that you use your right foot for the accelerator and left foot for the brake, making the use of floor switches complicated during emergencies -- when driving an automatic my left foot is "idle"/"available" for foot switches because I learned to drive a manual transmission *first* and the professional racers tell me I am wrong not to do what they do. For what's worth.)

Putting the high-beam switch in the steering wheel cluster is hard and expensive, but it was the right thing to do, given that the vast majority of the world uses manual transmissions and are used to signaling trouble with blinking the high-beams on momentarily.

For people who did not bother to watch the whole video, he also bitterly complains that the mirrors are too small and the view from inside the car is abysmally bad, he can't see much to be able to back up the car safely. He also complained about the car being too heavy for the engine (lack of) power, apparently the engine is less than 200 HP for a car that is several times longer and heavier than current cars. He also complained about the car being about as responsive to steering as a boat, he had to move the steering wheel about a foot or so before the car even began steering in that direction.

The *only* thing he liked about the car was how comfortable the seats were.

There are *lots* of things to agree with and disagree with in that video. But that guy is really annoying and grated on my nerves even when I agreed with him.

Incidentally, I can't remember when adjustable steering wheels showed up on the scene and/or became affordable enough, but I would have thought that by 1977 they were available and should be a standard thing with a Cadillac, given the air of luxury they were expected to have. So, *I* was surprised when he complained that his legs were banging against the dashboard, I would have thought he could have put the seat a little further from the dash and adjust the steering wheel accordingly.

Just the same, my impression of such cars has not changed at all: except for the fact that "full-size cars" back then were expected to have a bit more space for the rear passengers and the smaller cars used to make passengers legs cramped, my impression is that you had a 20+ feet long car which is hard to find space to park for in places like NYC and Boston, but room for passengers and drivers was not much better than any new car. Maybe people who traveled all the time were enjoying the noticeable larger trunk.

Again, let me reaffirm here what I've said many times before: it's more than fine to have a preference for old cars or new cars etc. No one has to justify preferring cake to pies or vice-versa, it's what you like.

My problem starts when people start trying to justify their preferences on why cake is healthier than pie or pie is better than cake on some made up reason that is easily disproven.

To put it another way, imagine if I started telling you folks how much better purple cars were than any other cars. It wouldn't take long for you to realize how ludicrous that reason is. People should be free to like, love or hate purple cars without the need for any reason whatsoever.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 956941 , Reply# 183   9/10/2017 at 14:09 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
I learned to drive on the Northern California coast backroads and US HWY 1. They are winding, mountainous roads that require a lot of shifing if you are driving a stick and at night requiring frequent headlight dimming due to oncoming traffic on two lane roads. I never found that the floor dimmer switch was difficult to use because a shift was required at the same time I needed to dim the lights. This is a situation that comes up not that often, you can see the oncoming car before you need to shift, so dim, then shift, no problem, or visa versa. As I recall it was second nature to use my left foot to activate the dimmer switch, its' all about what you get used to.

Maybe if I were to go back to the floor dimmer switch I wouldn't like it as much as I remember, but from what I recall it just seemed more natural to use my foot, and it took a while to adjust to the dimmer on the turn signal. To me it just made more sense because your hands are better occupied being on the wheel, especially on windy roads. But what do I know? I've only been driving for over 50 years now. And I've driven lots of old cars, and they had their strengths and weaknesses, just like the new cars.

Nothing is perfect.

My two cents worth.

Post# 956944 , Reply# 184   9/10/2017 at 14:40 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        
Lord Kenmore....You know I was just kidding of course

lordkenmore's profile picture

Yes, of course!

Post# 956946 , Reply# 185   9/10/2017 at 14:51 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

IMO, any time a woman isn't as good as a man behind the wheel it's because she hasn't had the same exposure, training, practice, etc. than the man/men she's being compared to.


It's not just women who get attacked for their driving--I've noticed the same thing (although perhaps to a lesser degree) about other groups. There was some very ugly commentary on YouTube car videos about one the people involved in making the video, who had Asian ancestry.


I have to wonder if commentary about driving skills isn't largely about a white man trying to sell himself on the idea that he's somehow superior.


I ride the bus--I don't have a running car at the moment--and I've actually found that all--and I repeat all--the women who have driven a bus I've been have been quite competent. I don't think this next point is particularly valid past being my limited experience with one transit agency, but the bus drivers who have made me nervous have all been men. (Although there have been thankfully very few of those.) One regular driver a while back even had slightly aggressive tendencies behind the wheel. Another passenger and I agreed we were both happier not paying attention to the details of what was going on--like left turns where he probably should have yielded.

Post# 956947 , Reply# 186   9/10/2017 at 15:00 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


Yes, as usual, you are right. It's not that hard, particularly if that's what you learned *first* and used it for some time. Just like it's easy and second nature in SF to just hold the clutch with your left foot, the brake with your right foot and slowly release the clutch, then the brake while at the same time using your right foot heel to tap the accelerator when you are stopped and about to move going up a steep hill. Some people consider using the handbrake in that situation "cheating" but I gather it depends on when you learned how to drive and who was the officer during your driving test.

Or, when I learned how to drive, you had to stop with the tires in a certain direction if you were parked uphill or downhill in SF.

But I can assure you, just like modern cars benefit from the tires in a certain direction when parked uphill or downhill, but it's not absolutely necessary anymore, once you drive for years with switches around the steering wheel, you will be annoyed with dash and floor switches, particularly during emergency maneuvers. It's not impossible, it's just a skill that's not taught anymore (just like many people do not know anymore how to set the distributor advance while driving, all cars do that for you now) and the times I've driven relatives' cars with manual transmissions and floor switches, I found them annoying. Luckily, I haven't had to downshift suddenly while blinking the high beams to alert people in front of me with those cars. When one is driving what we in America think of a "normal, modern" car, all we have to do is step on the brake, try to steer away from the trouble and blink the high beams, fast and easy. Not gonna list the lots of situations when having a manual transmission might be better or cheaper etc.

My point is that mostly now in my age I have a much higher appreciation for the absence of floor switches, and the amount of automation that driving is getting, including automatic transmissions, auto chokes, auto distributor advance, ABS, traction control, stability control, and even little things like intermittent wipers, rain sensors, cruise control and associated things (adaptive cruise control, automatic braking etc).

On of my brothers used to poke fun at those (he's younger than I am) -- he loves driving, he gets *miffed* when we go somewhere and he's not driving, he'll point out old cars didn't have those and people liked them etc. In fact, from the sounds of it, you'd think his dick would fall off if he couldn't drive a complicated car. He stopped poking fun one day when he drove one of the many 1940's cars one of my uncles had, he got sick pretty quickly of having to press the clutch, put the car in neutral, press the clutch again and change to the gear he wanted (no synchromesh on 1st or 2nd), not to say anything about having to crank the windshield wiper yourself. That's when he realized we *all* are used to some level of assistance from the cars, it's just what we grew up with is "normal" and the rest of the new stuff is for people who don't know how to drive properly.

Yeah, I can see that some people think that having all the "safety equipment" will save them from themselves and they can do all the wrong things -- I usually see them a few miles further down the road, in the middle of a ditch. Safety equipment does not relieve anyone from paying attention.

But the vast majority of cars leaving the assembly line this year will make it possible for people to brake the car and steer away from the problem, when 25 years ago that was not common and it was expensive, and a bit before then, you might not have been able to do it at all, skidding was a much more common situation back then.

I, for one, welcome all of that. Even self-driving cars.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 956961 , Reply# 187   9/10/2017 at 17:02 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Another late 1970s US luxury car video. This video demonstrates being able to steer with one finger, and also makes the comment that at least cars back then had a "style" unlike today.


Post# 956964 , Reply# 188   9/10/2017 at 17:54 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
thanks for the compliment! But no one knows better than I that I'm not always right, and I sure hope that I can always admit it when I'm wrong.

Your description of starting off on a steep hill without using the E-brake is how I was taught too, but I haven't owned a manual trans car for 20 years, so it might be a challenge, but I wouldn't be afraid to attempt it. Using a clutch is like riding a bike, once you learn, you never forget.

I was also taught to curb the wheels when parking on hill, just like you were, parking downhill, wheels turned towards the curb manual trans in reverse gear, parking uphill, wheels turned to the left and allow the right tire to gently touch the curb, with gearshift 1st. And in heavy traffic I was taught to also use my hand and arm signals, to be sure other drivers knew your intent. I don't use the arm turn signals anymore, but if I'm stuck in stop and go traffic on the highway I'll still sometimes use my hand signal for stop, left arm down palm facing back. Old habits die hard.

But you are correct about all the great safety features too. In 2000 I hit another car in the rear when he pulled suddenly in front of me. I was driving a 98' Honda Accord. I jammed both feet on the brake and literally had my ass out of the seat standing on the brake when the airbag deployed and slapped me in the face. It kind of even burned my face, but I had no injuries other than being stunned. That experience made me a believer in airbags.

I feel the same way about ABS, great safety feature. And anyone that thinks you are any safer in a huge 55' Cadillac, without seat belts, think again. I vividly remember seeing these old tanks in terrible accidents in the 50's and 60's in the Bay Area before my family moved to the country. It was common to see lots of blood from occupants that hit the windshield, or were impaled by the steering column.

Even so, I still love old cars and I realize that if I were ever lucky enough to acquire one, driving it would be different than what I've become used to and not as safe.

One thing about new cars that is not safer are the ubiquitous power windows. Go into the drink and unless you're able to break or kick out a window, say your prayers, cause you're probably gonna drown. And you would be hard pressed to find any new car now with windup windows. I love the convenience of the power windows, but I sure hope that I'll have the presence of mind to roll the window down if I ever find my car heading into the water.


This post was last edited 09/10/2017 at 20:26
Post# 956972 , Reply# 189   9/10/2017 at 19:17 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
My '81 Subaru had a hill holder clutch that was supposedly patented by Studebaker. Stop on a steep grade and it locked and it let go as you went forward, no e/brake necessary. Nobody around here has a manual Subaru now. Even though I have a 36 year old Corvette, I prefer my newer Silverado I have now for the ease and safety things. Vette is for sale, want it? Sorry, no air bags in it.

Post# 956977 , Reply# 190   9/10/2017 at 19:47 by cadman (Cedar Falls, IA)        

cadman's profile picture
I just could _not_ get through that video. I actually own a '76 Eldo (restored it in high school and still have it) and know these cars inside and out. Somehow the most unique things about the design escape him and the usual tropes make their appearance.

I do get tired of the 'huge car, puny HP' comment from people who have always had 200HP 4-cylinders available. Apparently knowing about torque curves or gearing isn't a requirement to be 'a car guy' these days. Mine has been souped up a bit, but in factory trim and tuned correctly, these 5000 pound cars get up and boogy!

Edit: Did this guy bury the lede or just miss the obvious? Not only are these Eldos FWD, but this one happens to have a rare '77 option- Electronic Multiport Fuel Injection (making more HP than he claims, sure, but drastically improving drivability).

  View Full Size

This post was last edited 09/10/2017 at 20:09
Post# 957043 , Reply# 191   9/11/2017 at 01:11 by tolivac (greenville nc)        

My Mom and Stepdad had one of those large,long, Licolin Towncars.They liked it- I HATED it-the thing was just too big-clumsy to me to drive-felt like I was driving their pickup.The LON----GGGG Hood is just WASTED space.The back seat was not habitable by an adult person.Glad they went back to a four door model-was better.and I liked the 4 door Lincolin better than the Cadillac they bought later.For motors-My Toyota Highland Hybrid gas motor-a 6 has 264 HP.The hybrid motors can add 125 extra HP.Yes,my car has all of the new fangled stuff-but like it.You just have to get used to it.And my car handles better than those HUGE rolling sofas of the past.

Post# 957396 , Reply# 192   9/13/2017 at 12:59 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
re: "Lexus & Mercedes don't build a perfect car!"

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
A case-in-point is a 1980's Mercedes that I used to frequently see as often as from when it was new up to a-few-years-ago that I no longer do...

It had those new-fangled headlights & even the wipers (and washers) fading & showing their age--to where the cleaning apparatuses probably no longer worked...

-- Dave

Post# 957441 , Reply# 193   9/13/2017 at 21:40 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        

Our family owns all Toyotas now. We have a 98 Prizm (Corolla), 99 Camry, and a 14.5 Camry. The older ones have well over 100K and drive like new. Also, my 99 Camry has the most comfortable back seat I have ever sat in. People tell me this all the time and I agree. They easily are some of the best cars on the road. Yes, Toyotas are recalled frequently, however they do recall them when they know something is wrong.

Post# 957485 , Reply# 194   9/14/2017 at 07:17 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Believe it or not

I can parallel park my Grand Marquis or a Town Car MUCH easier than I ever could either of the Hyundais or the Accord I had, And speaking of floor switches, My 63 Olds Starfire had TWO switches on the floor, the dimmer and a radio selector switch,But still...You have never really driven until you drive a mid 60s big Chrysler product, now THAT is what power steering is supposed to feel like and that is how a automatic is supposed to work!

Post# 957610 , Reply# 195   9/15/2017 at 04:24 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

I must say the electric steering on our new MKS is pretty sweet.  It is effortless when sitting still or going slow and has more feel when at highway speeds.  I'm impressed so far.

Post# 957768 , Reply# 196   9/16/2017 at 13:53 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Post# 957780 , Reply# 197   9/16/2017 at 16:21 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

One nice thing about old cars, is they don't depreciate like new cars do. If you were to buy a car back in the 1960's for $7,000.00, and if you were to sell it now, you would probably get $8,000.00-$10,000.00 for it. New cars loose a lot of value in the first five years.

Post# 957781 , Reply# 198   9/16/2017 at 16:21 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

One nice thing about old cars, is they don't depreciate like new cars do. If you were to buy a car back in the 1960's for $7,000.00, and if you were to sell it now, you would probably get $8,000.00-$10,000.00 for it. New cars loose a lot of value in the first five years.

Post# 957784 , Reply# 199   9/16/2017 at 16:49 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Yes, new cars lose a lot of value--starting the second you first start it to drive it off the lot... But that's always been true--those cars of the 60s dropped in value, too. It's just that they have had enough time to become collectible, and thus start appreciating in value. Indeed, I half wonder if the situation wasn't worse once with depreciation. (Perhaps someone who was around and paying attention can tell us what the depreciation realities were like in past decades vs. now.)

Post# 958370 , Reply# 200   9/20/2017 at 21:37 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Ford Model A as a daily driver:


Post# 958394 , Reply# 201   9/21/2017 at 00:07 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
thanks for sharing the video of the daily driver Model A Ford.

When my parents got married in1948 my Dad was in law school on the GI Bill. He owned a 39' La Salle at the time. Anyway, they went on a modest honeymoon on the Russian River and came back with only $7.00 to last for the next two weeks before either of them would get their next paycheck. So my Dad sold the La Salle for a couple of hundred bucks and they bought a 1930 Model A Tudor for $75.00.

Mom didn't have her license yet and no one wanted to teach her so she taught herself in the Model A. Then she went down to the the DMV and took her test. They had a Skye Terrier at the time that shed all over the inside of the car. The examiner got in wearing a blue serge suit, and immediatly began brushing off the dog hair. Well this Model A had tendency for the throttle linkage coming loose, and wouldn't you know it it came loose during Mom's exam. She was only 4'9", but she knew how to fix it. So when the car died at a stop sign, she got out, rolled up the hood, took out her screw driver and reconnected the linkage. By this time Mr. Blue Serge Suit had had quit enough. He said, "Lady if you can drive this thing, you can drive anything, take me back you got your license".

My Mom used to love telling us this story. Every time I see a Model A I think of it. Thanks for letting me share it with you.

Post# 958415 , Reply# 202   9/21/2017 at 06:42 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

You're welcome, Eddie!


Thanks for sharing the story about your mother's driving test. I loved it!

Post# 958421 , Reply# 203   9/21/2017 at 08:05 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Another Model A video. This one interested me in that it shows the realities of driving a really old car where just about nothing is automatic. Even something as simple as starting the car is considerably more complicated than we are used to. It's a bit a long--20 minutes--but it's probably not necessary to watch the whole video.


Post# 958422 , Reply# 204   9/21/2017 at 08:06 by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
The old Ford

Model T and A plant is being turned into Lofts.
My company built a new store in the 90's in Highland Park, and put a Model T in the atrium. The shopping plaza was called Model T plaza.
Unfortunately theft at that store was rampant. I'm certain most of the funds spent there were food stamps.
That was the last store opened in the inner city until Kroger built one in Rivertown near down town last decade. Now Whole Foods has also, and Aldi.

Off point, but important to me, so not sorry, but sorry if you're not interested. Can't please everyone.

Mikes fresh markets occupy a few of our former stores. The Aldi at the Gross Pointe park border gets a lot of suburban customers. The neighborhood adjacent has yet to be gentrified, but it's a start.
As younger people become higher educated, they become employed in non manufacturing jobs.
Healthcare, finance, research, engineering, and design is where it's at today.
There are a number of smaller manufacturing related shops, but they pay near poverty level wages. A few are the exception of course. One I know of is German owned. They only employ about 50, and most of them are related, and have been there for many years.
It's been and is a long road back from the ashes.
My neighbor works for that German company. He's quite the racist. Oppressed people developed a thick skin. Yes, at times to the point of being violent. They raised their kids the same way. Whitey is bad.
Continuing to incite racial superiority won't help soften it. Getting others to think just might help. All human minds can think. None are inferior, only the information fed them. Saying things like "they have their Obama phones, but don't know anything else" is just as bad as saying whitey is bad.
Oh, I've had black people get irate with me at times. One simply because I couldn't recommend the best wine. I'm not a sumaliet'. I know if a wine is dry, sweet, or fruity. Cooking wines have salt added.
So I deflected the conversation and asked how I could choose the best greens, and how to prepare a sweet potato pie. I like soul food, but not how to cook it.
I turned that guy's frown to a smile.
Take an interest in a strangers culture, you might make a friend.
I've also been held up at gun point at one of my former stores back in the 80's.
That gives me the excuse to be a hater or be racist right there. I almost quit. I needed therapy. But, my next store was where educated blacks lived. My assistants husband was a chemist.

Post# 958438 , Reply# 205   9/21/2017 at 11:56 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        

ea56's profile picture
thanks for sharing another great Model A video. Watching it reminded me of how much I used to enjoy the rhythm of driving a three speed manual transmission. It was something that just became second nature.

And the tightness of that 89 year old Ford was very impressive! The steering wheel didn't vibrate at all and such seemed like those brakes did there job just fine too, although I realize that our modern brakes are vastly improved, for mechanical brakes they were pretty good. Ford was one of the last auto companies to use hydraulic brakes, Henry Ford was slow to change something he felt was laready successful.

Post# 958442 , Reply# 206   9/21/2017 at 12:28 by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
My brother in law had a 1920 something Model A. Politically incorrect label on the accelerator lever said advance to speed up and retard to slow down.

Post# 958451 , Reply# 207   9/21/2017 at 13:32 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

Old cars will just run forever, and are simple to fix. It is discouraging how you can't even fix your own car anymore, and it cost $$$$ to fix a newer car, and to buy all of the diagnostic equipment and tools.

Post# 958459 , Reply# 208   9/21/2017 at 14:18 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

You're welcome, Eddie!


And I have preferred manual transmissions, although I've never had anything less than a 4 speed. But the rhythm of shifting gears is enjoyable. And it definitely becomes second nature.


And the tightness of that 89 year old Ford was very impressive!


It is...although I'm wondering if that isn't the result of a ton of money being poured into the car. I don't know the history past what gets talked about in that video, but I have to assume that there is no way that car could have lasted all these years in that condition without needing major work (quite possibly more than once).

Post# 958952 , Reply# 209   9/24/2017 at 22:49 by appliguy (Oakton Va.)        
Maytag85 I know where you are coming from BUT.........

appliguy's profile picture
When I was your age Sean I felt exactly the same way you do but time has shown me that new cars are not bad either. Now I do feel that we are starting to give a little more control of our cars to computers then we should (i.e self parking and self driving cars and such) but the fact is cars of today are much better made and on a whole tend to be more reliable and more economical as well as environmentally cleaner then what you refer to as “old cars” and I refer to as “vintage cars” and there will be plenty of todays cars around in 10 or 20 years. Look at a lot of the cars that are on the road now, a lot of them are 10 to 20 years old and they are still being driven everyday and todays cars are built even better then cars that were built at the turn of this century. I was born in 1976 and I grew up around cars of the 60’s 70’s, 80’s & 90’s and I can tell you that cars from these era’s are a lot more maintenance intensive both mechanically and bodily. Most American cars of the 70’s and 80’s were not put together very well and were not always very reliable. For example the rear windshields on my folks 1968 Pontiac Tempest and 1974 Chevrolet Caprice rusted out and started leaking with in the first two years my folks owned them and both were bought brand new by my folks. My dad fixed both rear windshields but said it was a major undertaking and today it would cost a fair amount of money to have a body shop do the work. The power windows on my dads 1979 Buick LaSabre were always going out and after trying to fix them himself multiple times to avoid a big repair bill he gave up and the only window that still worked was the drivers window. Oil changes, filter changes, timing belt changes, etc. all had/have to be done with more frequency then they do on the cars of today. Oh and as someone that owned a 1959 Ford Custom 300 club sedan for a while let me tell you that while vintage cars are easier to fix than modern ones, parts for them can be just as expensive and in some cases a lot more expensive then it would be to have a modern car repaired by a reputable mechanic. That also goes for body work, especially if you are driving a vintage car that is not real easy to get body parts for. Bodies on vintage cars were not made with as good of corrosion protection as modern car bodies so I hope you have a friend/relative who either works at or owns a body shop or that you are proficient in doing the body work yourself and that you have all the expensive tools it takes to do the body work so it does not look like crap. Cars today have crumple zones that sacrifice the car instead of the people in it in an accident. As proven in an above post, in older cars there is a lot more of a chance that you could be hurt in an accident and let me remind you that no matter how safe of a driver you are that does not guarantee that some other irresponsible idiot will not hit your car while you are in it. Also newer cars are on a whole are physically easier to drive and modern anti lock disc brakes bring modern cars to a stop quicker and safer than old fashioned drum breaks do. I know Norgeway has been singing the praise of vintage Chrysler Corp Full Time Power Steering and I have heard other people sing the same praise and I do not doubt it is well deserved praise at that. The reality you have to accept is while power steering in vintage cars is nice, power steering was not a common item in cars until the 1970’s. Neither were other luxuries we take for granted now like power brakes and air conditioning. Until you drive a car with manual steering and brakes with no air conditioning on a hot humid summer afternoon you will not understand how uncomfortable driving a vintage car can be at times. As for styling, now that is a matter of taste and I do have to agree with you that vintage cars have more style but what modern cars lack in style they make up for in other areas such as safety and convince. In closing like you and Norgeway, I would love to drive a vintage car as a daily driver, but like Norgeway I realize that a modern car is the more sensible and economical choice as a daily driver. PAT COFFEY

Post# 958953 , Reply# 210   9/24/2017 at 23:36 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

I have no respect for newer cars at all! I will, and will only like old cars only. #moderncarsdeservetogotothecrusher

Post# 958992 , Reply# 211   9/25/2017 at 06:17 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
Also on New Cars--Beware:

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
The curb/parking block manufacturers and auto manufacturers need to get together on how high to make the underside of vehicles & how much lower cement designed to tear off the bottom spoiler on the underside front of your NEW car is supposed to be...

Too often that cheap rubber gets torn off & dragged on the ground--also your radiator & cooling vessels & even components for air conditioning are under that area nearby...

-- Dave

Post# 958999 , Reply# 212   9/25/2017 at 06:35 by appliguy (Oakton Va.)        
Spoken like a true teenager......

appliguy's profile picture
I guess you are going to have to learn the hard way Sean. I hope you are planning on being filthy rich so you can keep your “old” car running as a daily driver and have good health insurance so you can afford a hospital stay if you get in a bad accident .....PAT COFFEY

Post# 959003 , Reply# 213   9/25/2017 at 07:02 by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


It's hard to tell from where we've been sitting, but my impression is that we've been dealing either with a person on the autism spectrum or a troller that posts "outrageous" statements just to see the commotion. There might be other choices too, but those are the two most likely to be true at this point.

I guess we will find out soon enough.

   -- Paulo.

Post# 959151 , Reply# 214   9/26/2017 at 00:35 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

You sensed that too huh?

Post# 959154 , Reply# 215   9/26/2017 at 00:52 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
I got the sense some while ago of the first scenario.

Post# 960037 , Reply# 216   10/1/2017 at 13:42 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
FASTEN BELTS--remember for only a FEW SECONDS?!

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
The BUZZZZZZ!!!! that the seat belt/keys in iginigiton/headlamos on that your OLD CAR sounds...

NOT the rings, dings, pings & blings (Dodge & all Ford/Lincoln/Mercury sound the worst & my aunt's Nissan pick-up which was from the beginning of ALL VEHICLES having those dumb chimes!) that your new cars do...

-- Dave

Post# 960157 , Reply# 217   10/2/2017 at 05:46 by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Our new Lincoln dings for the seatbelts.  If a front seat occupant does not buckle up it will "remind" them every few seconds until they do.  The park assist is a handy feature but the blind spot detection and alert system is annoying when backing the car under the carport.  It beeps at me to warn me of an approaching tree in my blind spot!  I just can't help but laugh when it does it.

Post# 960247 , Reply# 218   10/2/2017 at 15:11 by Vintagedreams (San Diego)        
The Classics all the way

As a newbie here and a fan of old appliances, I also love old cars, and have owned a few myself.

Currently, I own a 64 Cadillac, a 94 Fleetwood Brougham and a 78 Lincoln Continental. Previously I owned a 61 Lincoln ( Suicide Doors) Continental, a 72 Cadillac, and a 68 Cadillac, all were wonderful cars.

As you can tell I prefer the smooth driving classic luxury cars over anything fast and loud.

This topic is a very hard choice for me, having a lot of experience in owning classic cars, and knowing the difficulties that come along with it, I have to say, if I could drive my 64 Cadillac every day as a daily driver, I would!

The 64 was the pinnacle of Cadillacs, it was the last of the "Fin" era and the 50's design and styling cues. It was one of the last Cads that was high quality and built extremely well. The car floats over everything, the interior is massive and the 429 pulls like a hot rod in disguise. For being so old, the Cad handles and drives well, when I can afford it, I am definitely going to install disc brakes all around because the braking is the worst aspect of the car. But for looks and comfort, it's my favorite of the bunch.

What is amazing to me is how automakers were able to build such works of art, with all that chrome, and heavy duty steel, yet turn around every year and build something completely different so fast without the help of computers, really is mind-blowing at times. The average cycle of a certain model of modern cars is like 4-5 years, while in the 50's-60's, it was more like 1-2.

I own a 2017 Impala with 30,000 miles on it, which I love, it has pretty much every feature you can think of besides for all the safety nanny tech, like blind spot warning, etc..

It rides smooth for the most part, is well constructed, has great power, and hasn't let me down, but compared to my 94 Fleetwood, 64 Cad and my 78 Linc, the Impala feels like a toy. My 94 Cad and my 78 Linc are the absolute best riding cars I have ever owned, you hardly feel any bumps inside, they are very quiet to drive and they dont jolt you or shake you around like the majority of modern cars do, including my Impala. Going over the roughest pavement where I live, doesn't faze my Cad or Linc, they just glide over the rough stuff, but because the Impala is FWD has a shorter wheelbase, has no separate frame, you feel more of the road imperfections compared to my older full-framed tanks on wheels.

Someone that doesn't know any better, and has never experience driver large luxury cars from the 60's-90's, will think that their Toyo Camry or Hyundai Sonata rides like dream, they honestly don't know what they are talking about.

All in all, modern cars are more reliable, will go further without major issues, are cleaner to the environment, get way better MPG's, generally have more power than the behemoths of the past, but they will never look as cool, feel as solid, or stand out like a 50's-70's luxury Classic, nor are they as comfortable to drive for long hours like a 70's Lincoln is.

Modern cars do feel like an appliance that is built for a short lifespan, one area I notice this is how all new cars door handles are plastic, those hinges will eventually break, and come off, the leathers are cheaper feeling, just an overload of plastic trim pieces that used to be all metal in the old cars.

Nothing feels substantial anymore, and this goes for modern appliances as well.

It's the age we live in today. That's why it's more important than ever to appreciate and fix up these old cars if you have the ability to do so.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 5         View Full Size
Post# 960262 , Reply# 219   10/2/2017 at 17:26 by CircleW (NE Cincinnati OH area)        

Vintagedreams, your '64 Cadillac looks just like the one my dad's Uncle Fred bought new in the Fall of '63. I remember if was a White Sedan deVille.

When he got a new '72, we got the '64, and had it for a couple of years. I drove it a few times, and remember one time I backed it out of the garage, catching the front door chrome strip on the side of the garage. It pulled it and the one on the front fender out about 2'. When I got out, the piece on the door fell off. I took a hammer and tapped the part on the fender back in place, but couldn't reattach the door section. My dad was less than pleased that I messed it up.

Post# 960277 , Reply# 220   10/2/2017 at 18:47 by Xraytech (S.W. Pennsylvania, near Pittsb)        

xraytech's profile picture

Your 94 Caddy is the younger sister to my 93 Fleetwood Brougham.
I like your burgandy one better than my silver one.
Mine has the I'm assuming uncommon for the time heated front seats.
I'm up to 93,000 miles now. Have an oil leak that needs addressed, and a blower motor with very bad bearings.

While I like me 2013 XTS (essentially same as your Impala) nothing compares to the floaty ride of a huge luxury RWD sedan from GM, or my prior Roadmaster wagon.

Luckily with my town and country driving I get between 19-22 mpg in the Fleetwood.

Post# 960288 , Reply# 221   10/2/2017 at 20:01 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
Video In Post 187

combo52's profile picture

Cory I could not get through that either, the guy is a complete dick, differently knows darn little about cars.

Post# 960290 , Reply# 222   10/2/2017 at 20:09 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
Okay, it's an--Eeeeeeehhhhhhhhhh!--that the buzzer makes...

(Just watched that video & seems to be one thing I gained--well, the gauges across the lower part of the instrumental panel might'a bee fun to watch before the dash gained the LTD/Marquis "full warning light package" cluster...

-- Dave

Post# 960443 , Reply# 223   10/3/2017 at 15:36 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
another old one...

firedome's profile picture
just arrived here, an original '68 Caprice Sport Sedan ie 4 dr hardtop, with 78 k miles. Lack of serious emission controls and heavy mid '70s safety junk makes it an excellent and sprightly performer with just a 327 4 bbl and the superb THM-400, and the reasonable weight (3800 lbs) and size plus a pretty luxurious interior and great GM late '60s ride/handling make this one of the best overall driving vintage cars we've ever had, and one of the easiest for finding parts too. Newer cars for safe economical daily driving, a beautiful classic for a relaxing Sunday drive in NY's gorgeous Finger Lakes wine country...imo the best of both worlds!

  View Full Size
Post# 960483 , Reply# 224   10/3/2017 at 19:53 by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Im NOT a GM person

But I agree with you, these are good dependable vehicles.Ihad a 68 Bel Air many years ago, a good driving car.

Post# 960599 , Reply# 225   10/4/2017 at 15:16 by CircleW (NE Cincinnati OH area)        
'68 Chevrolet

That's a very nice Caprice. I think the color is called Grecian Green - is that correct? One of my mom's friend had a '68 Impala, and it was Fathom Blue.

One of my neighbors used to have two '67 Chevrolets; one an Impala in Nantucket Blue, and the other a Bel Air in Mountain Green.

Of course I didn't remember the official names for the colors, but I matched them up on

Post# 960614 , Reply# 226   10/4/2017 at 16:06 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
Thanks, and yes it is...

firedome's profile picture
Grecian Green, and it's completely original with the exception of an "outer skin" repaint in the original color over 20 yrs ago. It's always been kept indoors. is another good resource for original color chips.

The pic is at the seller's house btw, our small rancher is considerably less grand!

Post# 960652 , Reply# 227   10/4/2017 at 20:36 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Nice Caprice!


I'm not sure of exact models now, but a couple of junior high teachers had late 60s Chevrolets in the early 80s.


One was thinking about trading his Chevrolet in on a new Ford Thunderbird. I was a bit shocked at the time--the old car seemed more interesting to me. He did apparently do the trade when I was in high school.


The other teacher also had a late 1970s Ford van, and he liked to talk in class a lot about the sliding standards in America, and how quality was going down the drain. He once said he expected the Chevrolet and the van to last about the same length of time the Chevrolet was older, but the van had modern quality... At the time I had him, he mentioned he got offers from high school students for his Chevrolet, but he refused, since he and his wife needed a car.


Another time, this same teacher was talking about electric cars. He said that they might be viable for around town, but were seriously limited with distance/top speed. So people would need to have a four car garage--daily driver electric cars for the husband and wife. Then there would be two gas powered cars--one for general family use, and the other to be backup when the first wasn't working right due to lousy modern quality.


Post# 960692 , Reply# 228   10/5/2017 at 03:42 by Vintagedreams (San Diego)        

I couldn't agree with you more Xray, that's great to hear! My Fleetwood has 194,000 original miles on it, and it's still going strong. I also have a blower motor issue, it doesn't work! But all the power windows and door locks still work, including the power seats an trunk motor. I'm actually very surprised by the reliability of this car. The only problem I have is an oil leak as well, but it's coming from the distributor oil seal that I need to get fixed.

the Fleetwood ride probably will never be matched unless one owns a 7-series Bimmer or S-class Benz. Nothing beats a full-size RWD Cadillac or Lincoln in terms of total comfort.

CircleW, that must have been a scary dilemma. I know if I had a son, and he did such a thing to the 64, I would make sure he will take the bus to school or work until he's 30 lol.

Post# 960759 , Reply# 229   10/5/2017 at 12:36 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

the Fleetwood ride probably will never be matched unless one owns a 7-series Bimmer or S-class Benz. Nothing beats a full-size RWD Cadillac or Lincoln in terms of total comfort.


I'm not in the least bit familiar with the Fleetwood...but I am thinking that what I consider the "classic" American luxury car ride is probably gone, quite possibly never to return.


I certainly don't expect the Germans to ever be what Cadillac was. While I suppose luxury is the selling point to BMW 7 series and Mercedes S class, those cars come from Europe...and the engineering and heritage will probably reflect that. So the BMW will have nice ride...but that will be balanced with engineering that allows the car to effortlessly handle European roads (including the Autobahn). This is not, of course, a bad thing...just different way of designing a car. And different approaches have value--one local parts store employee once told me that the reason we have so many different car models is because one size does not fit all.


I have personally mixed feelings about the loss of classic American car luxury. It's not something I've ever really had, and I value handling. But as I get older, comfort is more appealing... I have even toyed with the idea of getting an American car with softer ride next time. Partly because prices are attractive here, partly just to experience the cars while they are still available as practical used cars. But the nature of my driving is mostly simple get me to the store and back...and anything longer is a highway drive. The scenic winding country road is not something I deal with very often, if ever. Comfort of ride--particularly for longer drives--might be nice... Interestingly, I knew a 20-something who had a 1980s VW GTI and her boyfriend had a VW Jetta. She once took a weekend trip, and she reported that she wished for most of the trip that she had her boyfriend's car, because it had a much better and quieter ride. Although the last miles were winding roads, and so the GTI was appreciated there.



Post# 960789 , Reply# 230   10/5/2017 at 13:57 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        

twintubdexter's profile picture

I'm glad to see there are people out there that appreciate big luxury cars like the Cadillac Fleetwood as classic and collectible. I enjoy following ebay vehicles to see if they sell and for how much. This 1990 Fleetwood coupe is one example. Cadillac chose not to make a 2-door model every year during the last years of the Fleetwood. This one is very nice. Interestingly, this car is in Pennsylvania but originally from St. Claire Cadillac in San Jose, a dealership I visited at least once a week when I was a teenager to check-out their used car lot. They had some nice stuff as did the Lincoln dealer across the street.


With a back seat like this, you could move in...

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 960791 , Reply# 231   10/5/2017 at 14:09 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
I promise to stop after this one...

twintubdexter's profile picture

For those old-timers that can remember the original "Let's Make A Deal" this is fun. Change this to today and see what the winners' reactions would be, probably "what the heck to they expect me to do with that huge thing?" Those were big cars. Cadillacs, like a loaf of bread in the grocery store, got much smaller.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO twintubdexter's LINK

Post# 960798 , Reply# 232   10/5/2017 at 14:56 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
I'm trying to get the feeling of a Chrysler 300 in my 200--and not even the 300 can recapture a down-sized 1982-to-1989 Chrysler Fifth Avenue!!!!

-- Dave

Post# 960810 , Reply# 233   10/5/2017 at 15:34 by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        
Have to agree that Caddy quality peaked around 1964...

firedome's profile picture
our across the street neighbor bought new '59, '64, '66 and '68 Cads (we moved after that year), and he was a fanatic in taking care of them. I'd go over and watch him, when at least once a week he'd carefully hand wash and chamois off everything, including the engine compartment, his cars always looked brand new, Chesapeake Cad always wanted those like-new trade-ins. The assembly, trim, interior brocade cloth and leather, paint and chrome quality and finish was just jewel-like on the '64 and even the gaudily-designed '59, while with the '66, and even more so, the increasingly plastic-y '68 (and they became far worse later on!) it was very clear that the famous Cadillac fit, finish, and materials were slipping.

From what I've heard the mid-late '80s were the pits, but the safety-ized mid '70s, with their huge over-hanging bumpers, wavy self-destructing plastic body filler panels and emmission-choked anemic 500 cu in (!) engines, while comfortable, were not at all fun to drive - we had a '75 Sedan DeVille that we drove to Montana and back, and it was, overall, a nice trip car but severely lacking power in the mountains and, at 11-12 mpg, gas stops were frequent! As '50s Cads would routinely make 17-18 mpg, progress it was not!

Post# 961042 , Reply# 234   10/7/2017 at 01:54 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
Responces and Observations...

"I will only like old cars, and old cars only. I don't like today's ugly, boarding, cheaply made cars. The cars that are made currently will not be on the road in 10 or 20 years from now, they will most likely be in the junk yard. New cars are made for obsolescence, while the old cars can be fixed easily and last forever!" -Maytag85

I respectfully disagree about your comments regarding how long new cars will last, I personally believe the date will be further out, more along the lines 25-30 years. Firstly, most cars from 2005 are still on the road and share a good amount of the tech used in today's cars. They are mostly rust free, even here in Michigan. I think modern cars will continue their stellar short term reliability until after a point it suddenly drops off. Being someone who dabbles in vintage electronics I know that certain components have a set lifespan that will eventually(despite best component choice and design) degrade until they fail. For example if you look at old radios, often the tubes are fine(they cannot degrade by design, they do wear with use, though), but the capacitors can and readily do(it has to do with the chemical composition degrading over time and heat stress). Take a look at what happens to old computers, hardware wise, they work flawlessly for a long period then suddenly fail. I predict the same will happen with modern cars in about 30 years as capacitors and other such components begin to fail and that the car restorers of 50 years from now will be those that can do board level repairs as such stocks of spare boards will have been, by that point, well depleted. You are right though, that eventually there will be less of today's cars in existence in 50 years than cars from 50 years ago, now, due to the hardships that will be involved in repairs once the electronics go, but for the short term(in this case average ownership of 15 years) modern cars from the mid 1990s and newer have already proven their superior reliability in that regard to older cars.

Also to your point of repair-ability and reliability, I actually own a 1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille and daily drive it as my first car. I am currently 17 years old and have had it 2 years, I did all my permit driving with it too. It cost me $1750.00 to purchase, but in the course of said ownership, I have had over $5000.00 in repair bills. Almost everything that has failed on it has been something that cannot be repaired by the average backyard mechanic. Transmission failure, exhaust, front end alignment, to name a few. Plus I've been nickeled and dimed to death with smaller things, for example this blasted car hates alternators with a passion and has already gone through three. I like the way it drives and I love the styling, but I also concede that some modern cars are safer. I will not say all, due to the size and mass differences. No matter the engineering, with rudimentary safety features like seat belts and collapsible steering columns, I would place my bets on a 5000 pound 1970s lux-o-barge over a small 2500 pound modern car just because of the mass. I am stuck in a century that I wasn't born in(for example, I proceed to watch a 1960s RCA CTC-17XE chassis color set while most people I know don't even have a CRT set at all).


It's hard to tell from where we've been sitting, but my impression is that we've been dealing either with a person on the autism spectrum or a troller that posts "outrageous" statements just to see the commotion. There might be other choices too, but those are the two most likely to be true at this point.

I guess we will find out soon enough.

-- Paulo." -earthling177

Being autistic myself, I would tend to agree with the former, he doesn't seem a troll. I welcome his comments and presence on this forum, we all give and take in useful information here and I wish for him to know that we aren't out to simply disagree with you, we are merely sharing what we know and you thusly. I wish for you to continue to appreciate, as I do, the vast human resource of knowledgeable people at this fine forum who tirelessly share important bits of history and information that they have learned over many years of experience and the rest of the world took no caring to and/or forgot about.

If you ever wish to contact me, Sean, My email address is

Post# 961047 , Reply# 235   10/7/2017 at 02:40 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

There are good things about newer cars, but I don't like the styling of newer cars. It seems like things in general had more style back then, and flare.

Post# 961092 , Reply# 236   10/7/2017 at 09:09 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
No, really, I don't like the styling of new cars either, but imagine if not coming with things like cruise controls, air conditioners, power windows and locks, power seats, even a tilt steering wheel and other accessories, all standard, and all due to demand for those things!

Yes, NEW for me, and able to get rid of via lease, when I'm tired of the package all that are in...

-- Dave

Post# 961109 , Reply# 237   10/7/2017 at 11:26 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

It seem like cars haven't changed all that much in terms of styling, and it seems like cars have changed very little since 2013. Most cars look just like last years' model, and things they claim to be "new" are not really "new" since it the same as last years' model.

Post# 961224 , Reply# 238   10/7/2017 at 20:22 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
must have been a bad batch of popcorn...

twintubdexter's profile picture

Some old cars waiting for the double feature to start. The Salton Sea is not all that far from the Palm Springs area. Occasionally the summer breeze brings the fragrance of algae and thousands of rotting fish to my back yard. Let's move the picnic indoors.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO twintubdexter's LINK

  View Full Size
Post# 962921 , Reply# 239   10/16/2017 at 18:38 by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
I want my Hardtop--my FOUR-DOOR Hardtop!

-- Dave

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 4         View Full Size
Post# 962945 , Reply# 240   10/16/2017 at 23:17 by johnrk (Houston)        
car love

I keep reading in various sources that young people, particularly millenials, are bypassing car ownership these days. Obviously, that's only in areas where there is alternative means of getting about, but I do think that the love affair Americans have with cars is ending. I won't go into how boring or look-alike or motivated by ever-more electronic toys--you all know that anyway.

You know what I don't understand? Why have people willingly given up color choices? I went to the Benz website recently to check out their sedans and there are only a few colors there, mostly variations of silver and brown. We generally have only a few choices of interior colors: Mouse-fur gray, mouse-fur brown, gray/black or some approximation of beige. Where are the blues, the greens, the reds?

Eddie, I owned the '66 LeMans version of your '67 Skylark. It was amazing to drive, that same 2-speed auto, the Pontiac 326 instead of the Buick 340. It was just the right size. I owned a '72 Buick Skylark convertible, the last year, in a deep green with matching interior and white top. I sure with I had it back!

It used to be typical for Cadillac, for example, to offer 10-20 upholstery colors and combinations even on the DeVilles. These creepy little Cadillacs now look like something a high school kid drew in study hall. That, or ugly 'sport' utilities that are disguised Chevy suburbans.

I like the safety of my modern car. But gone are the days when we used to eagerly take a Saturday and go hit all the local car dealers to look at the new models every fall.

Post# 962948 , Reply# 241   10/16/2017 at 23:48 by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Limited color choices are not a new thing. There was, of course, that line about the Model T: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."


Past that, though, it seems like color choices have been limited for years. I don't recall any car I knew much about since the 1980s that had more than a small selection of color choices. It's always amazed me seeing lists of colors for 1960s US cars which were longer and had more variety than the case in recent history.


I have wondered if part of the limited choices isn't a move to make things easier for the car maker, particularly one assembling a car across the world. Limited colors mean fewer variations for the car maker to deal with.

Post# 962949 , Reply# 242   10/16/2017 at 23:52 by Maytag85 (25 miles from Idywild, 25 miles from Temecula. )        

It seems like a lot of millienials lease cars, instead of owning a car. I may have been born in 1999, wich makes me a millienial, but I have like the style of vintage cars. It almost seems like I was born in the wrong generation. My first car is a 1986 Chevy Camaro Z28, and I plan on keeping that car for as long as I can. All millienials care about, is having all the electronic crap that you don't need in a car, and they complain about how older cars don't have a lot of technology. Millienials are spoiled, and they think they are entitled to have everything. I can go on and on on why I don't like my generation!

Post# 962951 , Reply# 243   10/17/2017 at 00:14 by thomasortega (Los Angeles - CA)        

Being an industrial designer and working with destructive tests so many years, I definitely prefer newer cars because of safety.Some models are interesting, because the little Philippe Starck near me loves "weird" looking cars.

I am probably the only person in the world that loves the cosmetic design in some Citroen, Renaults, Nissan Juke, Fiat 500, Mini, Ford Ka, Fiat Mobi, Fiat Panoramica (considered the ugliest car ever made)

On the other hand i hate some american designs like the 90's Ford Taurus (upside down soup plate) and Ford Escort (absolutely nothing to do with the European/Brazilian Escort)

I loved the design on Chevrolet HHR and SSR, but i owned a HHR and it was the worst crap I've ever had. When i bought it brand new, the driver window wasn't working. Think of leaving the dealer with a brand new car that was already "fixed". Anyway, the next day i left the dealer with my brand new car with the fixed window and before the first block there was a speet bump and the window simply fell. 5 minutes after leaving the dealer "with my brand new car that already had a window fixed", i was back to the dealer with "a brand new car that had the windows fixed but it broke and the car was full of glass everywhere" Add to that 23 visits to the dealer, a total of 4.5 months driving a lender car out of the 6 months I owned that crap. People was already thinking i worked at the Chevrolet dealer because i was there "clocking in" almost every day. Until I threatened to sue the dealer and they accepted the return and refunded me the money. Chevrolet never again in my life.

I am the kind of 8 or 80 guy. I love cars that are tiny (like the Smart, Mini or Ford Ka) or huge cars, like the Ford Expedition I dream about having someday.

And even loving strange looking designs, please, don't ever remind me that Chrysler car which name that has two letters should never be mentioned. If I could I would beat the designers that created the PT cruiser with "Havainanas" sandals.

Oh, and I also love the "old" new beetle. But i didn't fall in love with the "new" new beetle design.

If i would drive a classic car? like 1950s, 60s or 70s, no f-word present continuous way! As Ralph Nader said once, they're unsafe at any speed! My husband's life and my life are much more important than style. Some models are amazingly beautiful, but they all are designed to keep the car nearly intact but full of dead bodies in a crash.

Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      

Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.

Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy