26th Jul 2015, 04:37
In the late eighties I used to work in a salvage yard stripping cars for their valuable parts. Most if not all cars from the seventies in the yard rolled their odometers once or twice. You could tell by the wear and tear of the driver's seat or the rubber wearing off on the gas or brake pedal. Quite a few even had the engines taken out on the cars that were rusted away.
Styling changes back then were more frequent than they are today, along with affordable pricing, which explains why the average consumer purchased a new model every 3-4 years.
26th Jul 2015, 12:23
My old classic car cost nearly as much as my new one. It's a joy to maintain. The new one takes specialized equipment and is the polar opposite. So preference is not always a financial concern. When something goes wrong and the warranty doesn't apply, it's typically bring out the wallet. The worst part of all is the waste of time. New cars have computerized systems, that when things go, it can be a royal pain.
26th Jul 2015, 14:23
None of the GM V8s from this era bend the valves if the timing chain fails. They were all non-interference.
28th Jul 2015, 22:04
Sort of interesting that somehow there now seems to be a whole slew of posts about unremarkable mid to late 70's lead sleds. By then hardly anything was worth the metal it was made out of.
29th Jul 2015, 11:08
What everyone needs to understand is there are pros and cons to buying both new and older cars. Personally I've done fine with cars that are around 10 years old. Cheap to buy and maintain. New cars just don't seem worth it to me, and if someone laughs at me for driving an older car, I just say to them - the only one laughing is me. I didn't need to take out a loan for the next decade to pay for it; I actually own it. Same with classics, if you can afford to buy and run it, it can offer the reliability of a new car when you keep on top of things.
29th Jul 2015, 13:12
Because there were still some good cars in the 70s that looked great. The quality might have been pathetic in many cars, but at least with the American luxury makes, their components were still very durable and stout before the downsizing occurred.
Plus in order to obtain the same kind of size of a 76 Buick or Cadillac today, one would have to purchase a brand new Rolls Royce.
I'd take a true full-size 76 Buick over any new blobish Buick that has zero character, zero styling, zero class, and zero prestige.
30th Jul 2015, 01:56
I like both. A new basic car that you can take anywhere and not worry about it. Decent on gas. My emotional attachment however is a very nice, comfortable, well restored car to pop out of the garage. A weekend luxury cruiser. My only requirement is that they both have air. Old cars that are 6 volt with drum brakes with manual steering aren't a lot of fun for us. At least the 60s and 70 cars are more modern and dependable.
1st Aug 2015, 21:56
Very true. I have said myself many times the Rolls is the only modern car that even compares to the style and prestige of the classics from the 60s and 70s. It's crazy that back then Detroit had it all over the other makes (including Rolls Royce) in terms of style and comfort, and now all they seem to know is copying Japan and Europe. It's pretty bad when the largest Buick and Cadillac look like a Toyota Camry and ride about the same too. Today Detroit would rather try to woo people with the technological gizmos instead of the components that make a true American car. Why people put down their hard earned money for 90% of the cars out there is beyond me.
2nd Aug 2015, 21:29
If you ever notice when you watch a car commercial, they hardly ever talk about the car's styling traits? But mostly it's always about fuel economy, technology features, incentives, and performance?
This is because car manufactures know that their cars, even the best ones, don't truly look all that great. See back in the 50s-60s, cars were sold on styling, size, and performance. That was a big deal when it came to selling cars in that era.
Automakers can't build cars as lavish and as lovely as the classics, so they focus their sales pitch on features that hope to lure in customers. It's the same broken record sales tactics that hasn't changed for the last 30 years.
This will never change unfortunately, the bygone era when American cars were all the craze, and showed the world how we had the best stylists, and the best quality cars ever made. Those giant Buicks and Cadillacs stood out, and let everyone know you meant business. You could take 6 adults with ease out to dinner and nobody would complain how uncomfortable the ride was. Can't do that anymore, even with a BMW 7 Series, which doesn't have the same kind of hip and shoulder room as the 70s behemoths do. Long live the classics, keep cruising my friends!!
4th Aug 2015, 17:43
Actually wind tunnels are used to increase MPG. The net exterior result is a bean shape. Then interior dimensions are stretched out. Cars that look like the Prius are probably due to wind resistant shapes. It's like a car is designed inside out. There were great designs, but most would fail miserably today. Even heavy chrome bumpers or anything that would interfere with the wind resistance. I also miss front vent windows.
5th Aug 2015, 02:25
Maybe one day people will appreciate more than just the classics and unique sports cars. Fuel MPG and safety standards can be met, and some styling may be more appreciated. Many cars today are truly bland, ugly and ordinary. As much as a car costs, one would think people would expect more.
19th Aug 2015, 20:00
If the "worn-out argument" means nothing, then maybe you should enlighten us as to why vehicles started using six-figure odometers after decades of having only five-figure ones??
20th Aug 2015, 18:38
So, that means that five-figure odometers were sufficient before "to show the vehicle's true mileage" since vehicles then rarely made it to 100K miles?
21st Aug 2015, 13:36
No, 6 figure odometers showed the true mileage. If you purchased a used car back then, that was about 8-10 years old, and the 5 figure odometer read 65,000 miles. Would you want to play the guessing game if it was 65k or 165k? People simply didn't drive as much then as they do today.
Vehicles back then "rarely" making 100,000 miles? Go back and read some of the previous comments. It seems like you're the only one that disagrees. We have all made our points, let it die already.
Oh - and let me rephrase why 5 digit odometers mean nothing. They mean nothing to me when we have had many roll over, some twice.
21st Aug 2015, 22:17
Seriously, WHO CARES?! The point being made is that there were a lot of cars from the late '70s that rolled the odometer once or twice, which is probably one of the reasons 6 number odometers surfaced in the mid '80s. It all depended on the type of car. Take Chevy for example; if you had a Citation or early Cavalier, chances were you would face problems. On the other hand, a body on frame Caprice or Monte Carlo from that same era lasted forever.