7th Aug 2015, 02:22

With all the computer controlled technology and sensors etc on modern cars, there's more to go wrong.

7th Aug 2015, 05:00

My dad always owned Buicks for the most part. When I was younger he owned an '82 Electra (4 door) followed by the similar '85 LeSabre (2 door) with a sunroof. Both cars had loaded interiors, smooth rides and great reliability. The LeSabre was kept for 6 years and had over 100k without any problems at all. Both had the Olds 307, but the Electra had more power due to the better cylinder heads, which were changed in '85.

6th Jul 2019, 23:48

Yea, it's a well known fact that 1940s cars never, ever, broke down at all, because you know, older is better.

7th Jul 2019, 14:39

Comments / debates can go on forever on here like this in regards to old vs new :)

When it comes down to it, there are pros and cons to old and new cars, but I don't think anyone is claiming older (or newer) is automatically better, and certainly not any car from the 40s.

The main pattern I see on here (and other car reviews sites) is legitimate complaints about modern cars, and by modern I mean anything after the year 2000. People are frustrated that their 80s and 90s cars had (comparatively) little to no major expensive problems compared to newer more complex electronics found in modern cars. I think this is a fair criticism of newer cars - they are too complex and cost far too much to fix at a young age. Myself, I had an experience like many others - most if not all of my cars from 20 or 30 years ago lasted in excess of a decade and over 100,000 miles relatively easily. Nowadays though you've got cars from as young as a 2012 model car starting to give major expensive repairs at less than a decade old and probably a low mileage. So progress? I don't think so. If car manufacturers want customers to return, they need to prove long term reliability is still viable.

So you can see why when someone buys a new or nearly new car, they can get tired of it and long for the good old days.

7th Jul 2019, 18:38

That's a real relevant comment to post on an 80s Buick review.

7th Jul 2019, 19:36

What 1940s car? Didn’t see any mentioned til you did. Saw 80s to 2000. However I could fix a 60s to 72 domestic with the barest minimum of tools vs calling a tow truck.

8th Jul 2019, 16:42

Very well spoken :) Maybe now 23:48 will get it.

8th Jul 2019, 18:40

Sure, why not? The claim was that "the older technology was better technology" when comparing 1980s cars to 2000s cars. So by that logic, 1940s cars are "better" than 1980s cars because of even older "technology", but still not as good as 1920s cars with even older "technology". Of course, if you want to define "better" as "less stuff to break and easier to repair when it does", then the "best" of all would be Fred Flintstone's car -- nothing to worry about breaking there!

See you at the Bronto Burger!

9th Jul 2019, 20:01

You skipped a 20 year generation. What about 1960s cars?

9th Jul 2019, 20:38

I had 80s cars that were far more reliable than 2000 and newer. Especially Japan. Taking into account the Accords and Civics from that decade to 2000 and new. Same brand, same model. Even the paint was better. Some didn’t even didn’t return for warranty work.

I think it’s a bit extreme bringing up pre-war cars. Although our family had some exceeding 6 figures today if we kept them. My new cars are essentially disposable. May be wrong, but they drop in value everyday. May be wrong in future value, but I doubt it. I know you don’t buy cars just to make money or appreciation. But I have sold 60s and 70s special interest cars for more than my new models cost. There’s a lot of guys who have sold their old cars they kept and bought the newer version with the gains. So enjoy the older and sell for something new someday. Plus you can fun driving a classic convertible like a 55 Chevrolet for a while.

9th Jul 2019, 21:22

So according to your "claim" new "technology" is SO much "better"?

Does that include the modern Tesla with autopilot that are causing accidents that are not the driver's fault?

10th Jul 2019, 03:44

Sure, why not? Seeing that there are so many viewers or commenters on this forum that are old enough or even still alive to make the claim that 1940s cars had better technology.

Who knows, maybe it's Fred Flintstone himself.

10th Jul 2019, 13:17

If the build quality is poorer and increased high maintenance becomes valueless, it has little to no value. There’s technology that is very unreliable and simplicity is far more reliable. Like roll up windows being far more reliable than breaking cheap plastic power window regulators.

My new car has no spare. I cannot check my trans fluid via a dipstick. I miss having a radiator cap on my new car to easily flush my radiator. I don’t like the plastic neck on my modern radiator. I miss playing CDs in my car. I hate having to take so much off the engine just for access like plugs. Are these improvements?

10th Jul 2019, 21:40

I own examples of all three categories being discussed here: A '55 Mercury, a 1996 Tacoma and a 2011 Volt. All three have their pluses and minuses. The Mercury drinks gas to the tune of 9 MPG. It requires a LOT more maintenance. For example there around 15 grease fittings on it that need attention routinely. It is, compared to today's cars, VERY unsafe. As in a front end collision means the steering column and maybe the engine will get punched through the firewall since there's no crumple zones, no collapsible steering column, no safety cage etc. Parts are dirt cheap and it's easy to work on. Theoretically it could be made to run indefinitely.

The Tacoma now has almost 300,000 miles. Absolutely bulletproof reliability. I've owned it since new and it just goes and goes and goes. Even the original clutch made it to 200,000 miles. It too is easy to work on, parts are cheap and easy to find, and it has some additional safety. An air bag, collapsible steering column and a safety cage. Still - I would not want to get in a wreck with it.

The Volt has 150,000 miles and has yet to have an issue. I have no clue what I'm looking at under the hood. Otherwise maintenance is like most cars. Except intervals are further between due to the engine not running as much: Oil changed once a year for example. It has a virtual wall of air bags around the driver and passenger and a horde of safety features.

Cars have gotten better over time, just like everything else as the understanding of material science, the use of newer, more durable materials, as well as improvements in precision manufacturing means most of the cars made today will easily do 200,000+ without a hiccup.

OTOH I grew up in the early 80s and my parents had a whole slew of GM products from that era that were total pieces of garbage. A 1978 Malibu, an Olds Delta 88 and last, a Buick Riviera. All junk that gave them a huge amount of problems. They traded the last one in on a Camry and drove the wheels off that thing and have been Toyota owners ever since.

Personally I have no issues with most brands save for some of the German brands which are notorious for having problems as well as being expensive to maintain. So much has improved over the years that all brands have drastically gotten better.