The 1988 Nova was vastly superior to the Chevy Celebrity because it was built in the same plant as the Toyota Corolla. My Aveo is a great car, but is my "city" car. Its stablemates have included BMWs and currently a Subaru WRX.
I totally agree that modern electronics do not bode well for the longevity of 2005/2006 vehicles, which is why I like the Aveo - it is primitive. I lease my Aveo's stablemates for business, as I would never buy a modern car because once the warranty runs out you could be looking a huge bill just to "reboot" the computers.
I love old cars and always will. But to say they are safer than modern cars is ridiculous since not even the automobile companies believe that.
And I am not criticizing anyone for owning an old car, just when they say their Volare is going to sustain less damage than my Subaru in any given accident.
Hey, anyone who thinks 1970's American cars are the epitome of reliability should read the book "Rivethead" by an actual factory worker in a GM plant in the 1970's.
Hey anyone who thinks older 70s and early eighties foreign cars are the pillar of reliability, look for one in the used car classifieds. Last time I checked there were a lot more 70s Domestic cars in the paper as well on the streets. When is the last time you saw a 1980 Toyota Corrolla on the street that wasn't falling apart due to rust.
I would like to know what facts and figures you have to show that a 88 Chevy Nova is a better car? Neither a Celebrity or a Nova was that great in my opinion.
1988 Nova was a Japanese design built to Japanese standards in an American plant in Silicon Valley. The Chevy Celebrity was an American design built to low American standards.
The Toyota Corolla has a well earned reputation as being bulletproof reliable.
The Celebrity had mediocre quality at best.
I had friends who had both, and their opinions of their cars were shocking. The Nova was praised to the heavens, the Celebrity they couldn't wait to get rid of.
Wow! Talk about a long post. To the owner of the Volare: I bet there's a Chrysler dealer out there who'd buy your car in an instant. Think of the publicity of putting such a durable car on a showroom floor (never mind the fact that a 30-year old Volare shares little resemblance in terms of reliability to a new Chrysler). I read an article where a Toyota dealer bought a lady's old late 80s Corolla because she drove nearly a million kilometres! They gave her a new Corolla for it! Your Volare is not far off (522 000 miles = approx. 840 000 km)
Regarding the comment about demolition derbies being valid:
I totally agree that the crash tests done by insurance companies and such aren't real world. But the demolition derby isn't real world either.
Here is just one excerpt from the September 9, 2002 BusinessWeek article entitled "Gas guzzlers are safer? Pure Bunk", all based on recent studies:
"Drivers of Ford Explorers are 61% more likely to die than drivers of 1,000-lb lighter Toyota Camry"
The argument that heavier, bigger cars are safer than smaller cars WAS valid until the advent of airbags, safety cells and the rest as standard equipment.
Again, look at the deaths per 100K miles driven statistics. If what you people are saying is true, then deaths per 100K miles driven would be MUCH higher than in the 1970's when most cars were larger and heavier. But the reverse is true, and this cannot all be attributed to seatbelt use as one poster postulates.
I have nothing against old cars or peoples' right to drive them. But to make ridiculous safety claims based on the "it looks safe" principle is misguided.
Here we go with statistics again. Drivers of Ford Explorers are 61% more likely to die in a crash than drivers of a Camry? You cite that as "proof" that heavier cars are not safer, and yet your example is one of the most rollover-prone vehicles ever made, so you are not comparing the same thing. You guys pulling statistics out of the hat must be salesmen or MBA's, because no scientist or engineer would be so undiscriminating with the use of raw statistical data. You use a single vehicle comparison to make a blanket statement that heavier cars are not safer than smaller cars, and yet you totally neglect to address the fact that fatalities occur for different reasons. It's the same thing for these traffic deaths in different decades. You can't just look at the numbers and say "there were more traffic deaths in 1975 than in 2003, so therefore cars in 2003 must be much safer". No! There are at least a dozen different reasons why those fatalities have decreased. It is an aggregate effect, and there is no way that you can attribute a decrease in the entire population of fatalities to a single factor. This guy who prefaces every statement with "Sorry.." is hilarious! He is so convinced that he has all the answers as to actually be condescending, and yet he hasn't put forth a cogent argument yet. It's funny! This is getting like Homer Simpson: "You can use statistics to prove anything you want! 43% of all people know that." There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
While Los Angeles is discussing restricting the number of cars allowed into the city, in favor of implementing a mass transit system (an extremely reasonable and overdue proposal), the states of Minnesota and Pennsylvania are terminating their vehicle emissions testing inspections. So, happy motoring to everyone who has preserved their old cars!
It continues to boggle my mind that people on this thread are in such denial.
Death per 100K miles driven is a known statistic for both the 1970's and today, and yet today there are more miles driven by more people and yet deaths are substantially down.
If you did ANY research at all, you can see an instant correlation between the implementation of safety devices (seatbelts, ABS, safety cells, etc.) and a decrease in death and injury. ONLY when SUVs became popular did this increase and that is 100% due to their faulty design.
But go ahead and be in denial and use your Titanic thinking (it looks big so it must be safe). Reality has a way of catching up with you.
Sorry, but if you look back at the posts here you will see that people DO believe that older cars are much safer than modern cars and THAT is the issue under discussion.
As far as reliability, that is an open issue, but even the American auto manufacturers admit that the 1970's were the WORST time for automotive reliability, with 1978 singled out as the year with most defects. So why some people may find their 1976 Plymouth Volares to be God's gift to the concept of a perpetual motion machine, the majority of Volares were horrible. In fact, the name "Volare" has such bad marketing connotations that Chrysler refuses to rename any new cars with it, unlike other names like Charger and 300.
So while you may find people making cogent arguments backed up by real facts instead of hype based on some misplaced loyalty to be mongoloids, the reality of the situation trumps your arguments again.