Name : BMD Location : Canada Joined : 2009-04-28Post Count : 1161 Merit : 36
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:44 pm
I'm not bashing anyone. You posted a lot of info that was totally based on opinion and not on factual information, and I was just clarifying. I really don't care if you like musclecars or not, but I was surprised that on a domestic automotive forum that there would be more respect for them. You obviously don't enjoy working on cars or you would appreciate the potential for performance that these cars have. Thats fine, you seem to be more concerned about where to locate you Star Wars stickers.
Last edited by BMD on Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
IBx1 Expert
Name : ILAN Age : 33 Location : College Station, TX Joined : 2007-12-30Post Count : 4304 Merit : 69
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:47 pm
My dad had a 1970 Mach 1, grabber green. It's one of the best shapes I've ever seen given to a car, it could smoke many cars today(351 Cleveland motor, not Windsor), and it could do a real burnout. The tires never squealed, just hissed, and you had to let off the gas to start going forward.
And for Christ's sake, that Audi V10 sounds like a bored cheeta farting, stop reminding us of how soulless and industrial they are.
Jack the R Master
Joined : 2007-01-16Post Count : 8072 Merit : 105
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:19 am
I love the looks of all the old cars, 60's, 50's, 40's, 30's, etc.
The mopar muscle cars can be made to perform well in all areas, mostly with cheap old parts. The reason why the stock braking and handling on these cars is as bad as it is isn't because the engineers didn't know how to do better, it's because the tires of the time were abysmal. Why build a car with more suspension and braking than the tires can handle? If you retune the suspension for modern tires, and put on bigger brakes ( 12" front rotors off an old C body will work on my Charger. Most 8th gen Riv's don't have 12" rotors), the Charger will brake and handle like a late 90's BMW. At least, that's what my suspension rebuild manual says So, no need to turn to new parts, but if it's o.k. to swap 14" CTS-V brakes onto an old Riv what's wrong with putting an aftermarket 14" brake kit on a Charger?
Here's a 68 Charger doing surprisingly well in AutoX vs the Lamborghini Gallardo -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9xM-UM-vhw
Here's a 68 Charger laying waste to a Gallardo at the drag strip -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UfWo1YD_oE
My 72 with the small 318, 4 barrel carb and edelbrock intake felt about as peppy as the Riv. I'm guessing it weighs 2-400 lbs less, with 100 less horsepower but about 80 lb/ft more torque. But if you want you cold put in a twin turbo 500+ cid block with race proven components all the way around. There are very few modern cars this is true for. It can be done with most all muscle cars.
Shintsu Expert
Name : Shintsu Joined : 2007-10-14Post Count : 2979 Merit : -16
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:24 am
BMD wrote:
I'm not bashing anyone. You posted a lot of info that was totally based on opinion and not on factual information, and I was just clarifying. I really don't care if you like musclecars or not, but I was surprised that on an domestic automotive forum that there would be more respect for them. You obviously don't enjoy working on cars or you would appreciate the potential for performance that these cars have. Thats fine, you seem to be more concerned about where to locate you Star Wars stickers.
Ho ho, right. It's opinion that they don't post specs anywhere close to what cars today do. Is it also my opinion that they can't compete with new cars handling wise either? You want to tell me a Gran Torino even has half a chance at handling with most cars today? I have a friend who bought an old clunker '74 Gran Torino with a 400 in it, he said it himself that it sounded cool but wasn't too fast. Stuff was all broke on it like the fuel gauge, temp gauge, speedo. Not sure but I think the mileage was about 74k on it when he bought it. Kinda a reason old cars were five digit odometers - they're such shit they'd never last more than 99,999 as a general. And it's funny that Kias actually have had six digit odometers considering the cheap quality of their initial cars.
...no, I don't like working on cars. If I did I'd trade my car for a Ford. My dad works on his stupid truck that breaks down enough. No thanks. I like cars you get in, start, and drive. If you're doing work to them it's because you want to not because you need to. But with muscle cars they need work because they're just unreliable. Carburetted cars don't ever want to start right and they're way more prone to quitting and doing general stupid shit. THEY'RE OLD. OLD = OUTDATED. OLD ≠ BETTER. I'll accept rarities like the Cobra 427 but even by todays standards if it was built brand new today the car would do 0-60 in 3 seconds and be might better built.
Performance potential...you want to see performance potential? Here it is
Here's some more (Smoking some junky sounding muscle car too - where'd he go? He got the headstart...WHOOPS)
Here's some more
Here's some more
I don't care how fast you can make a boring old loud junky sounding V8 in an outdated body and frame. If you own any of these above cars you have something special that's hellaciously fast and is driven street and strip. Sure you can build a muscle car to go crazy fast. And then you can't drive it on the road. It's a drag car. A toy if you will. I respect street/strip cars only, pure strip cars have no value.
Hah, the Mach 1 is hideous. But so are most American designs from the 70's. As is probably obvious I hold no value to American design, it stopped being interesting after the 60's. You want to talk about boring and industrial, look at something from the 80's. I will gurantee some sorry POS Mach 1 won't beat much of anything on the road today. Well, unless you want to race Corollas, Scions, and Geos. If so, it's the big bad ass top dog. Race it against a '99-'09 Mustang GT, '93-'02 Camaro Z28 or Firebird WS6, any kind of sports car and it will lose badly. Old cars were inflated on horsepower figures just to make people squirt about how much "horsepower" they have under the hood. That's why manufacturers ratings were so bogus at the time, they just made up something that sounded good in the ad...Besides, 400 fake hp isn't going to move a 4500 lb car with a lossy transmission and tons of roll and other poor designs. Drum brakes much either?
Yes, cling to your outdated cars and act like their lack of features every car made today comes with as a boasting point. I mean hey, aren't the oldest camcorders the best ones? The oldest PCs the best (Who's gonna give the 486 a shout out?)? The oldest TVs? Oh that's right, everyone was wise enough to know the newer the better there. And fortunately most know the newer the car the more superior as well. Besides, America had to put all those import fees and quotas on the Jap cars in the 70's to keep out competition. Yes, don't offer people a choice of better built cars, just leave them to their shit and tell them too bad if they don't like it. How would they know what they're missing if it never gets here eh? Looks like they failed, Toyota is the #1 manufacturer in the world.
Surprising your taste is tainted by junky American V8s, that V10 is far superior to the sound any raggedy low horsepower muscle car V8 would produce. If you love the sound of shitty old slow V8s so much, put one in your Rivieras. Ruin a perfectly good car with a noisy inefficient motor. That is the American way isn't it? Loud, blustery, and inefficient - and ignorant of the world.
You people just can't stand to be fucking wrong about anything. Well piss off, I'm not some goddamned liar who's going to act like everyone else just to please everyone. Old American cars suck, case closed (to me anyways). No one will ever convince me otherwise. And yes, I can make this assessment without having riden in, looked at, sitting in, or being near an old car. Because the facts are right there on the damn paper - old cars = slow. New cars = fast. Damn Hyundai Sonata will beat most of those old pokey "muscle" cars. Hah, Muscle...as if to implicate power. Sure is, if power = noise. Sounds pretty ricey to me, Honda boys think noise = power too. Surprising the two groups don't get along better...
Oh and please, give me negative whatever points for this. Let me know how hurt you are by leaving angry little red marks to me. I find it ever so hilarious
Boattail Bill Fanatic
Name : Bill Age : 67 Location : Carson City, NV Joined : 2008-11-22Post Count : 381 Merit : 4
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:34 am
Shintsu wrote:
If you love the sound of shitty old slow V8s so much, put one in your Rivieras.
Well, actually - - - we're in the planning stages for that.
And I'm sure the 300 mph we're gonna get out of it will also be "slow" compared to the Euro-trash that's so highly touted here.
Jack the R Master
Joined : 2007-01-16Post Count : 8072 Merit : 105
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:05 am
Here's a 71 Charger that's faster than the Ryan Woon Supra -
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/328671
8.02 seconds. Best time I've seen for Ryan Woon's Supra is 8.37. The fastest run I've found for any Supra is 7.91. I'm sure there's a faster Charger out there. Here's a 6.9 second 55 Chevy -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iavfjvMjnwY
6.557 Grand National -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_nIwS2lYac
6.455 GN -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXNeK7HIYNY
Why can't Toyota build a Supra that's better than these old American cars?
Don't tell me how well Woon's Supra handles or brakes on those skinny drag tires
BTW what units is the performance of that Volvo being measured in? Kilometers? Is that the, uh, 1/4 km time or the 1/8 km time?
BMD Aficionado
Name : BMD Location : Canada Joined : 2009-04-28Post Count : 1161 Merit : 36
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:38 am
No one said that old cars handle better than todays cars or that they didn't have mechanical issues. But when you woked on 'em you didn't hook up a PC to it, you got your tools out and learned about cars, an experience that you are clearly lacking. Ofcourse the technology is outdated and I would love to drive an Aston Martin or Ferrari and the drive would be much more sophisticated, but what you have to remind yourself is that these cars were mass produced and would give you a rush just as sweet as new car, forty years later no less. I am not sayind that a 76 Aspen is a fast car, but between 66-71 the high performance cars from that era are legendary. I guess your just not "Car Krazy" You are entitled to your opinion, just base it on some experience. By the way, exactly which one of the cars in your clips are bone stock?!
Nice clips Jack the R!
Last edited by BMD on Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:59 am; edited 1 time in total
robotennis61 Guru
Name : robotennis Age : 63 Location : las vegas Joined : 2007-12-17Post Count : 5562 Merit : 143
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:00 am
i know a guy in vegas who can tune a old muscle cars carburetor to run as smooth as any fuel injected car. with mileage to boot! depending on where u live ,rejet, couple springs and back on the road! there are truly very few people who can make aold engine run right. but when they do they can be so satisfying. the whole experience just makes ya tingle. but i can honestly say that in many years to come when the tuning experts,i was gonna say guru but i abhore the word, of their time look on a old muscle car, the same wonder we feel when we look at a maze of wires and $$$$$$$ of tuning equipment, they will feel the same and wonder how in the f..k do i make it run?
Jack the R Master
Joined : 2007-01-16Post Count : 8072 Merit : 105
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:30 am
I'd love to drive the new exotics as well, but the chances of getting into one before I'm 40 or 50 aren't very good. They aren't good even then.
deekster_caddy Master
Name : Derek Age : 52 Location : Reading, MA Joined : 2007-01-31Post Count : 7717 Merit : 109
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:33 am
Well here's something to think about mr. you can't build a car for street/strip and daily driver - my brother and I both were given our "old shitty musclecars" from our grandmother, who bought them new in 1969 and 1973 respectively. The '69 special, well we were kids in the late '80s and I remember the exact exchange "What's a 4 barrel carbeurator?" "I don't know but I hear it makes your car go faster" being said before we got started... the car came with a straight 6 from the factory, my grandfather had the dealer put a 350 V8 in it before he bought the car new, not because he's a speed demon, but because he knew that an underworked powerful engine will last longer than an overworked underpowered engine trying to keep up. We changed that 350 into a 455, then discovered what real power was like. Slowly, over the next 20 years, turned the 4 bbl carb into a modern fuel injection system, added EFI and nitrous oxide, 2.56 gears in the back, so what we have now is a car that's capable of turning 11.9 in the 1/4 mile, turns 1800 RPMs at 65 and gets 19 MPG. My brother daily drives the car all summer, as long as the weather is nice, and it's a 40 year old car that does all of the above, plus regular track visits.
Does it have problems? Yes, it's not a perfect car. It has issues any 40 year old 300,000 mile suspension may have, some bushings need to be replaced, there is a little rust on the trunk floor... the front seat could use a recushioning/recovering... but overall this car cost less to build than buying something new and exotic that can run 12s and be daily driven. It's way more satisfying to do all this in a car that WE BUILT OURSELVES. No, we didn't "build" the car as in assemble it from the factory, but we have worked on every mechanical part, every body panel, inside and out I can't think of a bolt on that car we haven't touched.
So, the answer is that it can be done, and you don't have to come near our 40 year old deathtrap or whatever you want to think of it. I'm sure I won't be taking you for a ride in it. We like it and that's what matters.
IBx1 Expert
Name : ILAN Age : 33 Location : College Station, TX Joined : 2007-12-30Post Count : 4304 Merit : 69
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:45 am
Hideous? Let's take a straw poll, who thinks this car is hideous? Same exact setup my dad had, color, spoiler, stripes, shaker hood, disappearing rear seat, rear window louvers(not pictured on the first one), everything except for the 428 Cobra Jet. Like I said before, he had the 351 Cleveland that put out as many horses as it did cubes:
robotennis61 Guru
Name : robotennis Age : 63 Location : las vegas Joined : 2007-12-17Post Count : 5562 Merit : 143
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:35 am
how anyone could look at these cars and feel like their matchbox car didnt just up and grow before their eyes is beyond me? my dad was so into anything euro i grew up in the back of mercedes,fiats ,audis,volvos,volks,and the impression i grew up with was that american cars were junk. as an adult i now see the absolute genius behind the designs of these cars. one could go on arguing days on the for,s and the against,s, m/c cars represent AMERICA! and everything that is american and......ahhh what the hell? i havnt slept a wink all night and by god its sunday and im justgonna crash for while.and...i..i mean to say...that is..
Last edited by robotennis61 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
BMD Aficionado
Name : BMD Location : Canada Joined : 2009-04-28Post Count : 1161 Merit : 36
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:56 am
Hey IIan, I was at that show in your last pic! Beautiful car by the way
If you want to talk desireability or values, take a look at Barrett Jackson, the measure for automotive value. In recent years the HP restored versions of these cars have become astronomically more valuable than some exotics.
On a personal point, I was driving in a rather posh part of town and was driving my Charger nice and slow as a Ferrari 465 passed and the owner of the Ferrari says, " nice car man". Now this car could have beaten me in a race but what he had for my car is called respect, something that you don't have.
Last edited by BMD on Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:04 pm; edited 3 times in total
ibmoses Aficionado
Name : Bert Location : North Alabama Joined : 2008-02-03Post Count : 1701 Merit : 32
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:05 pm
!970 was a good year to be "CarCrazy" While its true some of the newer vehicles are fast. I dont think a Sonata wants a piece of this.
Most people that can afford a new car that will outrun this bitch have enough respect not to even try. They just look at me and give me a thumbs up. Little kids in the backseat start pointing and staring wide eyed. Middle aged men in fancy Lexus's pull up beside me and give me the thumbs up. The old farts like myself just grin at me. They know I am cool, always have been cool.
As far as being loud, from inside the car when you stick your foot in it all you can hear is that Quadrajet moaning and that clutch fan trying to blow the hood off. Dont get me wrong though. For transportation new cars are a far better method of transportation just because of the improvements in safety. I would love to have a new Lexus or something similar to that but there is no way in hell I could justify spending that kind of money for a vehicle, not yet anyhow. Last night we stopped and eyeballed the new Solstice coupes, my wife likes them. There was a new Pontiac G8 sitting there. The first thing I noticed was the price, the second was the gas mileage estimates. Heck my GS would probably get the same mileage the G8 gets. I think it was 15 city 18 hwy. Thats ridiculous.
Dont hate the player, hate the game.
Bert
Jack the R Master
Joined : 2007-01-16Post Count : 8072 Merit : 105
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:34 pm
Love the Mach 1 Mustang. Absolute classic car design. I'm not a Ford guy but almost all the Mustangs have been well done for the price point. The same is true of the Camaro, although the Camaro styling was always good (except for the restyled headlights and bumper cover on the 4th gen Camaro. When the 4th gen came out though it was HOT! Still remember seeing my first one and being totally blown away by it.)
I like the euro cars too but they are not the cars to work on and maintain. Leno said recently that he didn't think any of the new Ferraris would be collectible because they are too complicated and the tuning software costs $20,000. I don't know that I believe him - as the cars get more complicated we also get better tools (like internet forums and digital cameras) to deal with the complexity. But you have to respect Leno, he knows more about cars than everyone on this forum put together.
AA Administrator
Name : Aaron Age : 47 Location : C-bus, Ohio Joined : 2007-01-13Post Count : 18452 Merit : 252
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:47 am
Shintsu wrote:
They WERE fast at one point. They WERE awesome. Now they're not. Only to other people obsessed with outdated vehicles. Muscle cars are outdated relics. They're old junk. The fact people like you obsess and ooze over them is pathetic. They're not worth anything more than being tossed in a junkyard. They're outdated, inefficient carbureted gas hogs with no power. You want a real car, with real power worth looking at that will annihilate, you don't want to look at old sluggish pokey overweight muscle cars.
It's really not fair to compare 40 year-old muscle cars directly to new production vehicles. I lot has happened between then and now. Try looking at Honda, Toyota, BMW, or whatever "competition" from that same time period - look at what they had to offer. Do you really think that this Toyota was faster, more exciting, or in any way better than a late '60s muscle car?
I'll tell you - it wasn't, nor was it supposed to be. What it was: cheap, small, cute, boring, and easily beaten in every way by a domestic muscle car from the same era.
Furthermore, you're going to try and compare a stock Mach I from 1970 (the horsepower peak of the 20th century), a car that could hit 60 mph in 6 secs and run 14 sec 1/4 miles off the showroom floor - to a current Civic that was so slow in stock form that the owner had to spend tens of thousands adding a turbo and building up that little engine to do what we saw in the video. If you want to compare apples to apples, race the stock torqueless Civic next the Mach and watch the Honda get destroyed. Or, take the money you spend on that turbo and modify the Ford. THAT would be really fun. 500 HP turbo Civic? Put a turbo or two on the Mustang and you'll have 700-800 HP easy.
Shintsu wrote:
You want to tell me a Gran Torino even has half a chance at handling with most cars today? I have a friend who bought an old clunker '74 Gran Torino with a 400 in it, he said it himself that it sounded cool but wasn't too fast.
Here we are again comparing apples to oranges. After 1972, because of reduced emissions and the oil crisis, consumer demand forced cars to get slower virtually overnight. HP was cut, while the weight and size continued to climb. 1973-1983 were the years when the U.S. made some of its worst cars. So, to compare a '74 anything to a '60s or early '70s muscle car from the domestic HP golden years, it's just stupid. In fact, anyone who really knows about cars will tell you that there were no muscle cars after 1972, because all the muscle went away, and with it went the quality (to keep prices low).
Shintsu wrote:
I don't like working on cars. If I did I'd trade my car for a Ford. My dad works on his stupid truck that breaks down enough.
I love it when I hear this oversimplified idea that Fords are crap, because then I can point out that not only does Ford dominate the big 3 U.S. auto makers in quality & reliability (yes, that means GM), they also dominate some of the imports (yes, that means VW, MB, BMW, even Toyota). Fact: the results of a 2007 Consumer Reports survey of 1.3 million vehicle owners showed that 93% of Fords rated better than the industry average. Toyota, on the other hand, slipped with bad consumer feedback for the new V6 Camry, V8 Tundra, and V8 Lexus GS. And Mercedes, which used to have a reputation for outstanding reliability, doesn't even compete anymore. VW is nearly always near the bottom in terms of reliability. And if a Kia having a 6th odometer digit means you feel comfortable driving one, go for it. But when I see a Kia Amanti bouncing all over the road on its crappy suspension, I'm guessing the driver is wishing the car would blow up rather than last 200k miles.
Shintsu wrote:
But with muscle cars they need work because they're just unreliable. Carburetted cars don't ever want to start right and they're way more prone to quitting and doing general stupid shit.
Maybe not as reliable, but unreliable they were not. A carbureted engine that is properly maintained is more reliable than a fuel injected engine that is neglected.
Shintsu wrote:
Old cars were inflated on horsepower figures just to make people squirt about how much "horsepower" they have under the hood. That's why manufacturers ratings were so bogus at the time, they just made up something that sounded good in the ad...
This is complete rubbish, total BS... manufacturers did not inflate HP figures. What they did was adhere to the SAE gross standard used by the entire auto industry (except the Germans, they live in their own world). As the standard was revised, the HP ratings went down for all manufacturers, by a very predictable amount. What the domestic manufacturers did do was underestimate their HP ratings on a few occasions: ZL1, GN come to mind. Accordingly, when standards changed again in 2005, many of the Japanese HP ratings dropped, while the domestics gained. This means for decades the domestics have been giving slightly more HP for the advertised spec.
Shintsu wrote:
I mean hey, aren't the oldest camcorders the best ones? The oldest PCs the best (Who's gonna give the 486 a shout out?)? The oldest TVs?
I agree, and same goes for vinyl records and tube amplifiers, right? In most cases, older isn't better, but it's not an absolute rule. Have you ever written with an ink pen made in the '60s? Ever shaved with a 50 year old razor? Look at some of the toys for kids compared to those of 30 years ago or more. The definition of "better" is not always based solely on age.
Shintsu wrote:
Surprising your taste is tainted by junky American V8s, that V10 is far superior to the sound any raggedy low horsepower muscle car V8 would produce."
You should really know what you're talking about before saying something. V10s are not "far superior" to the sound of a V8. V10s are inherently unbalanced by design, requiring balance shafts to reduce vibrations, and they generally sound like shit. The reason everyone thinks V10s sound awesome is because F1 rules required all cars run V10s for a few seasons. Everyone got to hear V10s screaming at 18k RPM and then the Germans thought it would be great to make money off of it. Of course the V10 powered F1 cars sounded good - ALL engines sound good spinning that fast. But try listening to the new F1 V8s that are being used now (yes, replacing "old" V10 technology). These V8 engines rev even higher, playing music that can only be compared to the old V12 and V16 engines.
Shintsu wrote:
Old American cars suck, case closed (to me anyways). No one will ever convince me otherwise. And yes, I can make this assessment without having riden in, looked at, sitting in, or being near an old car.
You wrote all of that so you could finish with this statement? Is that really supposed to prove something? You make all these unfounded remarks, and when members disprove your opinions and tear apart the very fabric of your arguments, you now respond with "case closed"?
Well, reality is, you haven't proven a damn thing, and you can't close a case that you didn't win. You need to stop watching youtube videos and get some real seat time in actual cars. And get some more of whatever it was you've been taking over the past couple weeks. Everyone around here would appreciate it.
'70 Ninety-Eight Holiday Coupe 455cid • 116k miles ^^^ SOLD ^^^
AA Administrator
Name : Aaron Age : 47 Location : C-bus, Ohio Joined : 2007-01-13Post Count : 18452 Merit : 252
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:28 pm
The other day I pulled my '70 Oldsmobile 98 out of the garage - she'd been sitting in there for over 5 years. After taking the necessary steps, preparing for a start, I turned over the engine, started up and rolled her out to the wash bay, cleaned her up. Afterward, I took the car out for a cruise.
While I still maintain the stance that generally older cars aren't superior to newer ones in quality or performance, this car is still a joy to drive. It represented some of the best technology GM had to offer in the late '60s. People look, point, and smile when this big red boat rolls by. The 455 V8 sounds great. The suspension is so soft, the ride is comfortable. The power steering and brakes work with ease. It's no racer, but a great car for the road - for it's time.
But I did notice something interesting: rear visibility in the 98 is fantastic, better than the Riviera, and much better than most newer vehicles I've driven. New styling trends often push up on the rear of the car, making the back window higher and shorter, and allowing less angle of visibility (this makes the car appear faster from the outside). But on the Olds, the C-pillar is thinner than most newer cars; there is no B-pillar being a hardtop. Best of all, the rear "fins" of the Old work to mark the rear boundaries of the trunk, which are below the angle of vision. Reminds me of some '90s Mercedes sedans, which had metal rods that extended from the rear corners during back-up.
It's a shame that newer cars are all about looking fast on the outside, compromising the function of visibility from the inside. Older sedans had a shape that was very carefully calculated for driver ergonomics. As a result, they put the driver up high, and sloped the hood and trunk down slightly. You could see a lot out that rear window! The style now looks dated, but it worked, and it looked so cool back in the day. So, that's one area where I feel older cars actually do excel compared to newer ones. I recently drove a newer Chevy Impala - nice looking car, okay to drive, but man it felt like being in a cave. Hard to see out the rear and side windows.
'70 Ninety-Eight Holiday Coupe 455cid • 116k miles ^^^ SOLD ^^^
IBx1 Expert
Name : ILAN Age : 33 Location : College Station, TX Joined : 2007-12-30Post Count : 4304 Merit : 69
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:49 pm
Nice read. You're not gonna like these when they're all over the place though:
AA Administrator
Name : Aaron Age : 47 Location : C-bus, Ohio Joined : 2007-01-13Post Count : 18452 Merit : 252
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:56 pm
How can anyone not like those? They look nice from the outside. But you're right - that's exactly what I'm talking about. As long as I'm not driving one, I have no problems with other people trying. Although it's possible they are less safe when backing up or merging in traffic. I'll be careful driving near the blind spot of one of those.
Imagine if cars like the Riv, which had a traditional down-sloping trunk, had stayed around. There would be a lot more cars keeping the look, and it would still be considered attractive. But it seems everything is headed the direction of this Cadi coupe. I guess we'll all just have to learn to cope, and double check our mirrors. Maybe back-up cameras will save us?
'70 Ninety-Eight Holiday Coupe 455cid • 116k miles ^^^ SOLD ^^^
Sweepspear Fanatic
Name : Dale Age : 63 Location : Minneapolis, MN Joined : 2008-11-04Post Count : 386 Merit : 11
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:01 pm
I miss the long hoods! I read many years ago, that when driving long trips, a car with a longer hood was less fatiguing to the driver than cars that seemingly have no hood at all when you are sitting in them behind the wheel.
Sure, cars have come a long way, but there are some good things we have lost along the way.
Jack the R Master
Joined : 2007-01-16Post Count : 8072 Merit : 105
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:07 pm
I suspect the reason that airfoil shape of old cars had to go is because it was the shape of an airfoil and did the things airfoils do.
The Volt and Prius IMO demonstrate that the high back end shape is the ultimate low cd, low lift shape for cars. Unless you want to get radical like an Aptera.
My 72 Charger has a small rear window, thick C pillar, and a relatively slammed roofline compared to the Riv. Rearward visibility is worse than the Rivs. Forward visibility is better, due to the skinny A-pillars, but I wouldn't want to roll over in the Charger.
AA Administrator
Name : Aaron Age : 47 Location : C-bus, Ohio Joined : 2007-01-13Post Count : 18452 Merit : 252
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:22 pm
Good points. I think safety and aerodynamics play a roll. At least the Prius and Volt designs make part of the trunk transparent, for better visibility. Many cars don't do that. I agree the roofs on older cars weren't that safe. Good thing they were so heavy, low and wide, keeping them from rolling over.
Interesting comment about the hood. I can believe that. I like having a long hood to out in front, not sure why.
'70 Ninety-Eight Holiday Coupe 455cid • 116k miles ^^^ SOLD ^^^
Jack the R Master
Joined : 2007-01-16Post Count : 8072 Merit : 105
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:31 pm
AA wrote:
While I still maintain the stance that generally older cars aren't superior to newer ones in quality or performance,
Well, it's true if you're thinking in terms of buying a car and not messing with it. If we're talking about a custom ride, it's generally false because most old muscle cars, even the entry level ones, were RWD and had a V8/manual option. Most new cars are FWD with no manual and no room for a V8. The aftermarket support for muscle cars is also much more extensive than the aftermarket for most newer cars. You can get 14" brakes, you can get 500+ cubic inch aluminum block motors and trannies that can handle 1000+ hp. You can tub the rear and put serious rubber on. Not even ewolfe can tub an 8th gen Riv.
ibmoses Aficionado
Name : Bert Location : North Alabama Joined : 2008-02-03Post Count : 1701 Merit : 32
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:35 pm
Talk about a long hood. The other day I was cruising in my old GS trying to behave. In the mirror I see this convertible BMW rushing towards me. He pulls up along the pass side and is eyeballing the 455 embelms. He then punches it and takes off. That thing had a very long hood. I thought it was a M3 or whatever, but it had a Z-4 on the back which means absolutely nothing to me because I know next to nothing about BMW's. At the light ahead he jumps in front of me at the last minute, which was uncool. When the light changed he took off like a jackrabbit and got a couple of three car lengths on me before I hooked, I wound it a little harder than I meant too before I let it shift to second and had to switch lanes quickly because of the closing rate. If I could have lined up beside him instead of behind him I could have launched with less wheel spin. That little car was fast for a BMW and I bet it was fun to drive. I know the big ass Buick is fun to drive. Sorry for the threadjack I been meaning to post something about that encounter. I got to learn not to get baited into these seudo "street races" the PO PO would have thrown my ass in jail if they had heard me or saw me....
Bert
AA Administrator
Name : Aaron Age : 47 Location : C-bus, Ohio Joined : 2007-01-13Post Count : 18452 Merit : 252
Subject: Re: Old Cars vs. New Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:40 pm
Jack, I'd be careful using the word "can't" - but yes, I did mean that as it pertains to stock, street-driven vehicles. I also meant it in the sense that technology has made better upgrades and mods possible. When you modify an older vehicle, you usually do it with newer parts having better tolerances. Also, computers and other electronic systems can now be added to older cars. Once again, newer means better in most cases.
But styling is a tough subject. As sexy as some newer exteriors are, I think modern designers have lost touch with the utilitarian aspect that GM was obviously on top of back in the heyday. It seems every new car has to look like it's going 100 mph standing still. Why can't people feel comfortable buying a car that's actually fast, rather than just looking fast?
Bert, I've driven the base Z4. It's not the fastest thing, but decently quick. Your GS could have eaten it for lunch off the line. The M roadster, if that's what it was, is a very fast car. I've only seen one on the road in my life. If one of those rolls up, good luck. They run about 13 flat, even high 12s stock.