2nd Sep 2011, 19:01
I completely agree. I have owned over 40 cars in my time, and by far the most reliable have been the full size, V-8, RWD domestics from the mid 70's to late 80's.
These run ridiculous high mileage unheard of these days.
How many new cars reach the half million mile mark on the original drivetrain? NONE!
Believe me, I have owned a lot of 90's and 2000's cars as well, and I prefer the 80's ones by far.
I avoid fuel injection if possible, as carburetors are much simpler to repair; the less computers the better.
If I want to fix a computer, I will fix a computer, but I like to do tuneups on my cars myself, so I prefer the older cars.
Computers in cars are an awful idea, just a way for the dealers to make even more money servicing it.
Say what you want about the new cars, that they are better, but how can you tell the long term reliability when the car is only a few years old? Wait until 20 years later, and see how many are still on the road, that is the true test.
2nd Sep 2011, 13:39
We're talking about 1980's Chevy Caprice classics? There wasn't anything remarkable about cars like those at all. They were big boxes using ancient powertrains. I'm not the first to say that Detroit iron from the 70's and especially 80's was awful. Most car enthusiasts agree. It's also the era in which the quality was so terrible that Japanese cars made serious inroads into the US market. Remember the Vega, Pinto, and Fairmont? Those cars were put out onto the market as a knee-jerk reaction to the fuel crisis, and they were all terrible cars - especially the Vega with its Reynolds aluminum engine that loved to blow head gaskets.
What about all those Chrysler products from the 70's? Those things rusted away faster than the Titanic. What about the 80's Taurus? They used dissimilar metals in the transmissions, causing the pans to leak. That, and you were lucky if you made it to 90,000 before the head gasket blew.
There was absolutely nothing exciting about any of the cars made from that era. That's why - as mentioned before - it's referred to as the "Malaise era". Sure - there were a few promising products. The Taurus despite its many faults was a revolutionary family car. The Pontiac Fiero would've been a winner too had the bean counters not bean counted it to bits. But if we're talking about cars like the early 90s Caprice - that big, ugly looking bulbous car, then you've lost me. Cars like these were what brought down GM. The people who were buying those boats were old people. Cadillac, Oldsmobile and Buick were all making terribly dated, out of touch cars that only old people would buy. So much so that these brands became synonymous with retirees. There was nothing "Sexy" about the Cadillacs of the 80's. Big, bloated, boring boats. Granted - I have a 1950's "Boat" of my own, but that car has style. There's a difference.
Now - as previously mentioned, GM, Ford, and even Chrysler are doing MUCH better than they were a few years ago. I believe they've finally gotten the message that in order to build customer loyalty and gain new ones, then you've got to build competent, reliable, desirable products. It's no longer good enough to build giant SUVs and trucks that people in middle America love to buy, while ignoring the small car market - the types of vehicles people in major metropolitan areas want. Its also no longer good enough to stick cars in generic looking uninspiring wrappers. Style. Reliability. Efficiency. Innovation. Technology. Price. All of those things are crucial to a car company, and thankfully I think the Big 3 have finally gotten it. I hope they continue as they are currently doing.