old cars V new cars
Question is I think cars from the late 70s to the early 90s are the most reliable, simple, easy to fix, cheap to fix and have the best looks compeared to all this new electronic, over complicated, exspensive to repair, and awfull looking cars that are being made nowadays. any one agree and any one any examples of this?
Alex can blow it out his noisless, emissions free, Hydrogen conversion pipe... anything '90 and earlier is much easier to fix, and drive than any of this new stuff... it'll go for longer, and you'll have to fix it less, and when you do... YOU can fix it... not the mechanic... becuase you don't need to plug it into a computer to reset this, and diagnose that... Yes, the environment is good, and yes I like breathing... but all this newfangled tech just isn't up to par yet... like the electric car... it'll be crap, anywhere that isn't california... becuase it just can't stand up to the colder northern temperature. and yes... earlier cars DO look better ;)
I was actually just gonna start a post about how cars made from like 71 to early 90s are the ugliest cars ever made and they were so shity and a lot of them had a lot of electrical problems such as the corvettes in the 80s
not to be a dick head but the dont look better at all. they look like the styling was just quickly put together cause they spent all there time trying to figure under the hood first. They are all ugly and look like rusty boxes and the interiors were usually hideous with there vinyl and ugly piped seats yuck!
lol... i dont think all new cars are that bad to fix... Ive certainly heard no horror stories about mustangs and thats kinda my turf... and sure plugging them in is sometimes a hassle o wait no... no it really isnt... the OBDII system makes everything really easy... the tool to read it costs 100 bux and to convert from code to what the problem is requires 2 mins of internet time... then its a easy fix... As to the environment i could really give a shit... itl sort itself out im not saying we should burn forests for fun... electric cars work fine in the cold (the tesla works fine in canadian winters at least... im not speaking for all electric cars) and the fisker karma is dope... I dunno about older cars looking better... The halo cars i think look awesome but the day to dayers are all designed with the same ruler... i think the normal everyday cars of today are better looking and personally i like a lot of the new car designs in the excess category of cars... I love the corvette design, like the challenger and camaro designs, really like the mustang of course haha, i like the viper as a thing to look at its rubbish to drive comparitively, and in general i cant complain about much from austin martin hahaha... oh but u got it right in the case of the datsun GT-R that is one ugly little piggy...
im sorry you drive a 04 lancer i cant take any car styling advice from someone who drives a lancer...
every thing was easier to fix, but didn't need to be fixed as much because they built them to last back then. I agree with chris, alex has no idea what he is saying.
physically easier to fix but OBD does make it alot easier to diagnose nowadays. Additionally despite people saying they were more reliable, I have to disagree. How many 70s cars made it to 150k without major work? How many to 200? Why do think it's so hard to find a matching numbers car from the era? Plus dialing in a carb is something I will never miss. I'd rather pop in a new ECU map or O2 sensor any day of the week. Digital ignition same thing, who wants to set dwell on a dizzy when you can just replace an ignition module. Yeah it's more expensive but when you compare an hour of labor now to the price of the parts you really aren't saving that much. The only time I'd prefer an old car is if I'm pulling the motor for a rebuild. Then you wish you had fewer sensors to keep track of. As for styling it's a matter of opinion. I personally like the 50s MG styling the best, but there are exception then and now to styleing. Look in my garage, that's a 70s Porsche, it's ugly as sin. I'd say all the Porsche's from that time were ugly as hell in comparison. Muscle cars were just big and long, for the most part they are bland as hell, it's the cool factor that makes them attractive. If you styled an econobox like that it'd look like pure shit. They still make big long cars and most like the look... Astin Martin, Jaguar, GTR, Viper, Vette.... To name a few have the body styling of the older muscle cars huge hoods, raked windshields, ect... Now you put a stock 69 Camaro next to a new Viper, you'll agree styling wise the viper has more going on. There was nothing special about the cars from the 70s they don't have much going on at all. That's personally why I like them, understated cool. Not a ton of little details screaming at you. Hood, Grill, Trim. Well long rant short... Apples and Oranges. What worked back then won't work now it's that simple and what works now would have looked shitty back then. Each ear has it's pros and cons.
what does that have to do with my styling advice? i never said i didnt think my car was ugly and the evolutions arent ugly at all by the way
well the old cars are easier to fix, if you can find the parts, but they need more maintance, more tune ups, etc. they have carbs to worry about, and retune twice a year here( weather reasons), points to get dirty and wear out. plus they cant take as many miles as a new car, 100k is ALOT for a car built in the 60s. new cars are fuel injected, dont foul plugs, burn less oil, parts wear out slower, are safter, faster and easier on fuel new cars are just plain old better for everyday use, but you can beat the nostalgia of a 30 year old carbed v8
Again, this is a subjective question. I like the new stuff but I LOVE THE OLD STUFF TOO! I'd love to still have my 1966 GTO, 1966 Charger, 1970 Road Runner. But equally, I'd love to have my 1976 Celica GT, 1981 Citation X11 and my 1990 Taurus SHO. Face it, we're all "gearheads" and it's all about the cars. EVERYONE IS RIGHT!
i think your just confused... sure you can mend most older cars with a piece of string and a brick but new cars dont need as many repairs, are easy to diagnose, and replacment parts are everywhere...
no logan not everyone can be right this is the internet lol
I don't knwo who told you 100,000 kms is alot for an old car... heck, from what I've heard, in Japan a car hits 100,000kms and the cut the front end off and scrap it... so what does that say about modern imports? old cars last MUCH longer without major repairs... the civics in the motorpool at work are going in for service all the time... it's annoying my crown vic will probably be turning 200k soon my buddies '84 mercedes Diesel is almost 600k (but it is a diesel...)
so solid state electronic ecms, in which no parts move to wear out vs... distributors/points... which wear out like mad. fuel injection, which has a perfect fuel mixture, starts every time, never leans out or floods the engine, vs a carb, which takes forever to warm up, needs tuning all the time, dries out and varnishes if the car sits. AND if its not tuned properly, which they usually are not, they will lean out the engine, which can cause detonation, or make it run rich, which can foul up the plugs/wash away the oil in the cylinder. and that's just engine issues... and of course an older car has more miles... its OLDER, therefore had more time to gain miles... ive worked at an engine shop, and 60-70s era engine looks like it went through a war compared to a more modern engine with the same amount of miles, way more wear, and carbon.
which means what? Work on a 2000 thirty years from now, and you'll probably see exactly the same mess... If there are any left by then...
Well said Chris! I agree.
i Like To Mix Cars Together,1931 Buick With A 1976 Datsun 260 Z Engine N Trans. O Yea! The Gages From The Z I Put On A 2x4 Outside, I Just Could Not Cut The Orignal Dash Up.