8th Dec 2005, 21:59
I don't see anything wrong with driving a car that is 30 years old. In fact, I would rather drive a car that is 30 to 20 years old than these new car these days. Cars just don't drive the same as the use too.
9th Dec 2005, 12:10
Boy, they do come crawling out of the woodwork.
Anyone who has done any research on ABS knows it does not work in icy conditions, so to say the system is a "failure" because of that is simply ludicrous.
Just watch any Motorweek episode on PBS and watch their braking results with cars equipped with ABS. No older car could touch them.
And I wouldn't trust any safety system on an American built car, so it's not surprising your ABS was inferior.
As for the BMW issue, the car was essentially rebuilt, I had owned a previous six cylinder car from the same year that was cheap to maintain, so I had no reason to think the car was going to cost me as much money as it did. I have owned five BMWs and I am aware of their higher costs. But to suggest a Chevy Celebrity is ridiculous. You can't even find them around here because no one wanted them even new. I love to drive and don't drive unsafe, boring cars.
And cars today, in general, drive significantly better than their 20 - 30 year old counterparts due to advances in technology. I have nothing against old cars, but I am not such a Luddite to think that 30 years of technological advances are not going to bring benefits.
9th Dec 2005, 15:07
Not only do new cars not drive as well, they aren't as dependable as old cars. I bet this guy with the '76 Volare never had to pay $800 to find out which code the computer was giving him when the check engine light was on. A check engine light! Ha ha ha ha! Suckers! And I bet his A904 Automatic Transmission never locked up because the software crashed. I'd agree with the other poster--ABS is for people who are too dumb to take it upon themselves to drive safely and prudently. The bit about new cars being safer is a lot of humbug. What makes any car safe is the driver. The new technology is an attempt to compensate for the fact that people want to push it to the edge, and not slow down when the should, or maintain a safe following distance.
9th Dec 2005, 17:12
Sure, advances in technology have brought us the benefit of cars that quit on the freeway because the computer died.
9th Dec 2005, 18:16
I think safety is a relative thing when looking at an older car. If he crashed the Volare into some new car, the new car would crumple up and absorb the whole impact and the Volare would stay intact. Hitting a pole is another issue though. A '76 isn't much different from a full size car made in the 80's, and other than engine controls and overall design. I bet if you compared it to an '88 Crown Vic or Caprice which are full frame and big chrome bumpers the safety factor is about the same, there were no real advances in that time period. Airbags didn't come into play until the 90's and that was about as far as it goes with safety advances. Even a brand new Crown Vic isn't much different from an older one other than new overall technology and airbags in the dash.
Unless, of course the Volare is a unibody in which case the results may be different. Old cars have so much more character than newer ones. I hate those monochromatic gray interiors new cars have and how you'll see an identical one in a parking lot somewhere.
10th Dec 2005, 10:33
Safety is NOT relative. If you look at fatalies in America vs. miles driven, our roads are MUCH safer than in the 1970's, and that can be directly attributed to advanced safety features found in all cars (and mandated by law in many cases). Statistics don't' lie.
Just because a Volare "seems" safer doesn't mean it is.
11th Dec 2005, 09:18
Quoting raw data on number of traffic fatalities doesn't say anything about whether a Volare is safe or not. Nor does it say anything about whether old cars are safer or less safe than new cars. If we assume that your raw figures are correct, then it only shows that there were more traffic deaths in the 1970s. That means nothing until you normalize those raw figures on fatalities to some datum, like fatalities per 100,000 registered vehicles or licensed drivers. Even that doesn't say anything about the cars. If there has indeed been a drop in the rate of fatalities, it may be attributable to social engineering factors, such as mandatory seat belt laws and more stringent drunk driving laws. Those are probably the two most significant factors for any decrease, and neither has anything to do with the safety features available on a car. They had seat belts in cars in 1970, too. No statistics don't lie, nor do they give us easy answers to over-simplified questions.
11th Dec 2005, 14:01
Could you show me some facts and figures please, and your sources? I figure don't post unless you can back it up.
11th Dec 2005, 15:04
Sorry, but such statistics are based on deaths per miles travelled, so they are valid. There are more cars on the road today travelling more miles than in the 1970's, but overall traffic deaths/injuries are substantially down. The only times traffic deaths/injuries went up was when SUVs became a substantial amount of new cars purchased. But we are talking cars, not SUVs, as I would rather be in a Volare than an SUV anyday.
Seatbelts only go so far. Why you people continue to deny modern safety equipment in 21st century car is beyond me.
I'm not criticizing the validity of enjoying an old car, but the premise that it is actually safer than a 2006 model.
11th Dec 2005, 23:01
This is from the guy who posted on 11th Dec 2005, 14:01. My comment was directed to the comment made on 10th Dec 2005, 10:33. Just posting to make things more clear. Also if one wants to compare apples to apples, shouldn't the SUVs and trucks from the 1970 era be removed from the statistics so one can compare cars to cars. Also I have seen no sources where these "statistics" are coming from. Some sort of website where these "statistics" are being obtained would perhaps enhance the credibility. Until sources are shown the argument can have no basis because the "facts" have not been proven. Statistics don't lie, but people do.
12th Dec 2005, 11:20
So the above poster is now saying that seatbelts aren't safety devices? Please.
Sorry, but even foolish American drivers, unbelted and all, are safer crashing in a 2006 Honda Civic with six airbags, safety cage, etc. than in any 1970's American car. I have the 2006 Honda Civic brochure and they go to great lengths to point out all the safety features built in.
I WILL give you that all these advances have lulled the American driver into thinking s/he can forget about physics and common sense. I'm sure you've seen as much stupidity on the roads as I have, including drivers putting makeup on, talking on a cell phone AND smoking a cigarette AND shifting a manual car, and the rest.
As for reliability, it is 100% true that modern cars are plagued by technological overkill.