Cars Are Better Now Than They Ever Were!

R · 2004-11-11T00:29:15+00:00

I am getting annoyed at people's comments about some of the newer cars. I have occasionally come to this site and try to offer advice. If someone has a problem, I am glad to try to help. But comments about new cars are baffling to me. Like saying a new car should have a FUNCTIONING hood scoop. Why? They make more power than almost any 60's car that had to have a functioning scoop to gain power without one. Remember, the horsepower rating was changed in 1972 to show net horsepower not gross horsepower. That means that a car in 1970 that had 390 horse would equal about 315 in todays ratings. Don't believe it? Check the quarter mile times. They will bear it out using the power to weight ratio. I am 45 years old and when I first got my license, it was in 1975. The cars we had were from the 60's since we did not have the money for new ones. I thought that era was the best. When I turned 21 and started going to bars, I listened to the older guys say that the 50's cars were the best. I decided that I will not stick to an era based on my age but judge cars based on the way they are. Back in the 60's you had 12000 mile plugs, 6000 mile point adjustments with a 12000 mile replacement,12000 mile fuel filter and so on. As the points wore, the cars performance changed. Now they run solid their whole life. They used to have bias ply tires that were not speed rated and dangerous at high speed. No air bags, no anti lock brakes, worse gas mileage,4 wheel drum brakes on a 4200 pound car with much more brake fade. No crumple zones in the sheet metal, no shoulder harness, junk radios from the factory, no factory alarms, thin sway bars on heavy cars, 40 amp alternators(remember sitting at idle and watching the amp gauge go to d(discharge)?) Just check these performance times and you will see that the 60's and 70's cars can't touch today. And now they are adding even more power. Before you say, yeah but look at the prices, They say that 5000 dollars in 1966 is equal to 45000 today. The...

Nov 11, 2004 24 Replies

Rate this thread:

Al Bundy 21 years ago

well, I'm still driving an '83 Malibu with the original driveline, untouched engine and transmission. It has cost almost nothing in actual repairs. I wonder what it would cost to keep a new car running for the next 20 years. Power and acceleration don't interest me in the least. I just want to drive cheap. And by the way I only had one break down needing a tow in all that time.

Vote

ABC 21 years ago

difference.

The original post was about "old" cars (50s and 60s) not the "new" ones of the 80s!!

We used to hear the same thing back then. "They don't build them like they used to" and I would say "Thank God". Those from the 30s and 40s would be wore out when they got to 50K miles.

Vote

Ray 21 years ago

And that really sucks with new cars and the whole integrated "audio entertainment systems" in them now. Imagine if 8 track decks and cassette decks were as integrated...

Vote

Ray 21 years ago

What's funny is my buddy and I are both computer techs... but his hot rod Nova is about as traditional as you can go. Holley 650 on an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, the infamous "mild" cam (I dunno the specs) and a Mallory HEI and MSD (6 AL?.) No fuel injection or computers here. It's kind of satisfying setting the timing by ear and then checking with a light and seeing I can do about 10 degrees BTDC by feel now...

Vote

J Grant 21 years ago

I'm anything but a computer tech myself. I appreciate the original engines, but I also like the gas mileage I get with the Corvette running gear. I used to have an old Pontiac LeMans with a nice Chevy 350 in it with the Holley carb and mild cam. It was definately a runner, but she was a thirsty girl.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required