57 Plymouth to be unearthed from 50 year Time Capsule

Huh. I wonder how it held up all these years. My Dad bought one that turned into a bucket of rust by 1963.

I bet they weren't wrapped in that foam stuff I saw around the car. I'm sure the vehicle won't be drivable or even startable without / major/ restoration work, but I'd say it's at least a 50/50 chance the body is in good to great shape.

The real question is, why did they put a case of beer in the trunk? That's going to be undrinkable now.

That, too, is a matter of opinion.

I think the newer cars are better looking.

But them again, I thought the Pontiac Aztec is way cool, and I own a Ford Contour.

More importantly, the new cars do their job way better than the older ones, IMHO.

Jeff

Something has been accomplished, at least you are now saying IMHO for change instead of things like 'we are running out of VINs' as something factual We know for a fact the Toyota does not make a Ford. ;)

mike

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:57:33 +0000, Jeff got out the hammer and chisel and etched in the wall:

Just wait until Microsoft gets involved in cars...

..then we'll need to pay for a new car every two years, which will have the same functionality as the last one but won't be able to use the same fuel.

yeah, fuel injection and its related drivability improvements are nice, but on those old cars, you could fix them with a few wrenches and bailing wire.

messagenews:45cfb890$0$6836$ snipped-for-privacy@news.adtechcomputers.com...

IMHO you're batting 50% there...

I don't know about that, really... I personally am rather disappointed in the *lack* of meaningful improvements in vehicles over the last few decades. We've added lots of gadgets, but some of the older vehicles are still more fun to drive and just as functional.

Sadly, we'll probably never again see some of the light, nimble, cheap sporty cars that were popular from the 60s through the 80s because of Federally-mandated safety equipment. The closest thing we have now would be a Mini Cooper S or maybe a Mazda Miata; both still weigh in at around 2500 lbs, compare and contrast with an original VW Scirocco,

1700-2000 lbs. depending on year, or the Triumph TR-6 to which the Miata was the spiritual successor, 2200 lbs. with a big straight six engine as opposed to the Miata's little four-cylinder. Or if you want to get real silly, the original Mini at its porkiest never got much above 1600 lbs...

Hell, the Shelby 289 Cobra weighed about 2100-2200 lbs. Today it'd probably be two tons with all the mandated equipment.

This is progress?

nate

You will also have to do a complete shutdown, and restart every two hours! The monthly trip to the dealers to fix a dozen faults that should have been designed out in the first place, would be a pain too!

Steve R.

So would arguing that I am batting 0%.

Let's see: better handling, air bags (and I don't mean my wife), CD players and iPod connections, air conditioning, better transmissions (in my opinion, that means smoother-shifting standards, others would say that CVT is a great inprovement), electric motors, sun roofs, anti-lock brakes, intermittant wipers, doors that open by themselves in vans, and run-flat tires. And the engines and cars are more reliable.

I think the VW GTi is one and it is still out there.

On the other hand, you can get a VW td and or hybrid and get like 40+ mpg. And in the tdi, the glow plugs start the engine in less 30 sec.

Considering all the improvements, including better brakes, the improved ability to survive crashes, anti-lock brakes and decreased polution, I would say so.

Jeff

ANd you'd be driving a car the size of a postage stamp at 3 times the speed of light. So the fact you have to restart the car every two hours would be immaterial, because 2 hours would take you to mars.

And the new car needing different fuel would only be the case if you had a car designed by Apple, as microsodt software and the intel chipset have always (or virtually always) been backwards compatible.

Although the functionality would be the same, the speed would double and the size would half roughly every 2-5 years. You wouldn;t notice thew speed much on normal eartbound travels because around the world on last years model was only a blink of the eye, so todays model being able to go around the world twice in that same blink would not be noticable going from, say, new yout to L.A.

Another advantage would be parts would almost all be interchangable, because operability would have been standardized. You could put a ford part in a chrysler by simply replacing the software drivers.

messagenews:45cfb890$0$6836$ snipped-for-privacy@news.adtechcomputers.com...

We also have bodies that generally do not self destruct in 5 years or less(both my vehicles are over 10 years old and still look good, and yes, one is a Mystique). They also generally last their full lifetime without regrinding valves or replacing rings. We don't have to replace exhaust systems every year or so. Spark plugs last several years, to the life of the car. A car with 100,000 miles on it now is just nicely broken in, not worn out. About the only thing that has gotten less reliable, or at least has not improved a LOT is brake life. Asbestos linings beat the cheap crap they use now in a lot of ways - but todays brakes, when working properly, definitely outstop the old stuff.

I'll agree the old stuff had more character. You'd never mistake a 57 Plymouth for a 57 (or any other year) ford, chevy, or Cadillac. The styling was WAY over the top. The mini and the MGB definitely had it over the civic and the miata for cute, but the worst civic or miata built in the last 10 years was 5 times the car, reliability wise, than the MG or Mini. (My first car was a 1961 Morris Mini 850. I've owned cars spanning from a 1928 Chevy National to my current 1996 Mystique, including cars from pretty well one end of the spectrum to the other - and as a mechanic worked on everything from a Moscovitch to a Rolls)

Sorry but you're out of date by over a year. see Intel Macs:

Unfortunately your car would be sure to catch a virus and you'd have to walk.

I suppose we could all drive King Midgets with their 8HP Wisconsin single cylinder engines. Or Biscuters.

Less stuff to go wrong!

I'm not out of date. I didn't say ALL Apple designed cars would need different fuel, only that ONLY Apple designed cars would need different fuel.

Last I checked, Apples run on the same energy sources as all other computers: 110 V 60 Hz American power (fueled by oil from the Middle East, of course). The funny thing is that they use so little power, that the mini doesn't even need a cooling fan. Kind of like the hybrid of desktop computers.

Apples will run Windows and Unix, too. Non-apple Intel machines don't run the Apple OS.

And, Apples being backward compatible for fewer versions of the OS is actually a plus. People who program in Windows and want to suport Win 95 have either limit their system calls or determine which program is running (Win95 is not an OS), but rather, detect which version of windows is running and make different system calls based on the version. People may still have to do that with Apple, but they have to do far less.

Finally, Apples rarely get attacked by viruses. Being different is sometimes good.

Jeff

IMHO the Contour was a very underrated car, and I'm still shaking my head that Ford let it die while continuing on with that POS Taurus.

mostly due to tires.

extraneous stuff I could do without

available since the '50s

Hmm, my "old" T-10 with a Hurst shifter shifts as well as any new car i've driven

more extraneous stuff I could do without

I disagree! My old cars have been quite reliable; I'm sure that a new car might have incrementally longer times between repairs but would undoubtedly be significantly more expensive to fix and/or jobs that I'd do myself on an older car would have to be jobbed out to a mechanic.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. The original GTI was a light, nimble, economical "hot hatch" that was a blast to drive. The

*new* GTI weighs more than some midsized cars of the 60's. Or to put it another way, an original GTI probably weighs about 2/3 what the new GTI does. I've owned A1, A2, and A4 chassis GTI's, of all of them I think I'd rather have the A1 back than either of the others. The A4 comes a close second, but I wouldn't consider it a sporty car at all - more like a small luxury car that happened to be fast.

I'd *love* to have one of those TDI engines in an older VW body! I bet it'd be a hoot.

better brakes are good, but I really could care less about the "improved ability to survive crashes" - first of all, it's irrelevant to my life, and secondly, cars have been pretty good in that respect for decades. The latest round of "improvements" only incrementally improves the survivability at the cost of dramatically increased complexity and weight. Anti-lock brakes? IMHO they are a gimmick; some systems are very good, some are crap, in all cases they are completely unused by motorists 99% of the time, if the driver is any good. Decreased pollution, I'm all in favor of that, but that could have been accomplished without tacking on all the other stuff I'm complaining about.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm a retro-grouch. So be it :)

nate

I'll agree. Th 2.5Liter V6, in particular, is one sweet little machine. A royal pain in the rear to work on, but a joy to drive.