whats your opinion? new or old?

I have a question for all of you:

After owning an 85 chevy pickup for 4 years, and now a 95 gmc burb owner for 7 months, and reading the countless posts on this website, do you really think General motors has improved their line of :2cents: trucks??

Back in 85, you didnt need a $2500 computer to work on your darned car, and problems were simple and easy to diagnose and fix. WTF happened?? shouldnt the newer cars be easier to fix?

what is better? NEW or OLD

post your opinion and some verbage to back it up. i wanna see if anyone else out there is fed up with newer cars.

thanks, Rob

Well this is interesting.

Brief VIH since age of 16:

1st : 79 Mustang - inline 6, auto
2nd: 89 Pontiac Grand Prix - V-6 5spd
3rd: 82 GMC Sierra Classic - 305 V8, 2X4 3spd w/4th granny gear(L)
4th: 99 GMC Sierra LS - 4.3L V6, 4X4 5spd single cab
5th: 93 GMC Suburban K2500 SLE - 7.4L 454, 4X4

I've driven about 420,000 miles so far with all these vehicles in that order. And I spend WAY too much time reading about the automotive industry and have family that works for 1 of the big 3. So for whatever that's all worth, here is my opinion on new vs old:

I think that old cars are better for the people who enjoy working on their own autos and appreciate past style and build characteristics. Yes, they are not going to cost large amounts of money to keep on the road once they're refurbished, good reliable models of the past will perform just as good once again for a small price. And the main thing for me, would be driving a peice of time that is gone. That is an interesting feeling. However, the negative side to all this is safety. cars of the 70's were heavy and fast, the 80's was just weird and not too safe, the 90's safety became a priority and now, I think we're not too far away from fuel cell powered super autos like most can't even imagine. To me this is new. Until we get away from the ancient technology of exploding fossil fuels in chambers creating rotary motion, all we are doing now is building cars too higher safety and performance levels. the technology that is getting us down the road is always the same. Buy some gas and go. We need new stuff. Fuel cell cars don't need brake systems, transmitions and power steering pumps to mention a few, although they may need alot of other stuff. By product of utilizing fule cell power is water. The powerplant operates in silence.

This is new stuff, and really, old vs new is only a matter of opinion and not of value. My 79 mustang was just as reliable as my 99 sierra. The 79 mustang cost me $700 + gas and maint. The 99 sierra cost me my perfectly good 82 GMC on trade in + $16,800 in lease payments + gas and maint + end of lease penalty of $10,800 for 60k addl miles and excessive wear and damage. Drove both vehicles about 120000 miles each. Gmc was a dream in winter, mustang was a dream too(nightmare). Looking back - the OLD & USED 79 mustang was clearly the better value. If the 99 sierra route were an idiot contest, I would've won.

And last week when it came time to get a car, I chose old/was new 11 years ago. the value the value the value

I guess it's all relative to one's income or amount of cash already on hand. I would love a 2004 Nissan Titan, but not for 35k

I'm rambling now

Happy trails

Still have a 89 2500 4x4 Sub. Ordered it new for 19.5K out the door. Its a base model work truck (no carpet, no leather), front & rear limited slip. Its a tank. Has totalled a range rover with little damage (was their fault). Hauls 2000 lbs of equipment every day for 200,000 miles. Once accidentally jumped a 5 ft. wide crevase. Last year put a knew crated chevy engine in, rebuilt the tranny, did some body work, paint & new seat. Its ready for another 100,000 miles.

2nd suburban was a 1/2 ton 96 4x4. Piece of crap. Went through something like 6 alternators. Was not very sturdy feeling. Did ride nice. Was a light duty family truck that I used in work (I'm a land surveyor) on occasion. Got sick of the unreliabiltiy, got rid of it.

Current Sub is a 8.1L 2500 4x4 with autoride. See my post about stalling / dieing. Other than that, is a very solid truck. Engine is a bomb (when it isn't stalling). Does quite good offroad, even breaking brush. The autoride is extremely good, truck corners very well. If I can get the stalling fixed it looks like a keeper.

A sensor for EVERYTHING. That is probably a good thing, but I still pump the brake when I start to skid! Can an old dog ever be taught?

Still have a 89 2500 4x4 Sub. Ordered it new for 19.5K out the door. Its a base model work truck (no carpet, no leather), front & rear limited slip. Its a tank. Has totalled a range rover with little damage (was their fault). Hauls 2000 lbs of equipment every day for 200,000 miles. Once accidentally jumped a 5 ft. wide crevase. Last year put a knew crated chevy engine in, rebuilt the tranny, did some body work, paint & new seat. Its ready for another 100,000 miles.

2nd suburban was a 1/2 ton 96 4x4. Piece of crap. Went through something like 6 alternators. Was not very sturdy feeling. Did ride nice. Was a light duty family truck that I used in work (I'm a land surveyor) on occasion. Got sick of the unreliabiltiy, got rid of it.

Current Sub is a 8.1L 2500 4x4 with autoride. See my post about stalling / dieing. Other than that, is a very solid truck. Engine is a bomb (when it isn't stalling). Does quite good offroad, even breaking brush. The autoride is extremely good, truck corners very well. If I can get the stalling fixed it looks like a keeper.


I had a 92, it was OK. Only thing I liked better than the new one was the extra 14" of space behind the rear seat. I went through an alternator/battery combination every year, 2 rear ends, one transmission, window actuator, 2 water pumps, fuel pump, radiator, windshield wiper motor ($500 repair) etc. all in 140K miles.
Other than that, I love my K2500 8.1L. Yes they are a pain to work on, if you can at all. But they are very reliable, start at all altitudes/weather. I had not realized how much I loved fuel injection until I sold my big boat and got an older smaller boat with a carburated 350 in it. I loved the ability to crank and go, the carb is finnicky, pump throttle a few times, crank it...if you flood it, crank it with the throttle open all the way...
Guess it is one of those things that you need to be comfortable with. The engines are much more efficient with fuel injection, but if you like to tinker... :iceslolan

Opinions are like...well you know the rest.
I agree with much that RTcamping has posted, especially about the future of the automobile. I must confess, however, my crystal ball has intermittent performance problems.
I'm fond of saying, "They don't build them like they used to...they build them better." That only makes sense if we define better. By better I mean newer vehicles run longer with less attention. What I don't like about newer versely older is that they violate the KISS priciple (Keep it Simple Stupid). Too often enhancements are overly complex. I think I understand why. It's not all that tough to develop a complex solution to a complex problem. Genius is the ability to produce a simple solution to a complex problem. Because of their complexity, late model vehicles are much more difficult to troubleshoot and expensive to repair.
It really boils down to how you define "better". Would you rather something that requires service more frequently but is easy to service, or would you rather something that seldom requires service, but boy when it does, it's usually complex and expensive?
When given a choice, choose both. I believe that our automotive future has the potential to provide more performance, greater efficiency and even less maintenance. I think that the really smart design teams will help themselves do all of this by finding ways to make transportation simpler. Hybrids, fuel cells, battery technology, materials science, systems integration, I think the state of the art in all of these fields puts us on the theshold of drastic improvements in vehicular power.

First car 1966 Mustang, loved it. Many cars, pickups, vans, and suburbans later (1997 was the most recent suburban and recently purchased 1997 GMC Sierra Ext. Cab 4wd) I have really come to love the newer vehicles 1996 and newer. The mid to late 80's were a mess and in the early 90's it started to get a little better. I grew up working on cars and I still do it today and I think it is getting a lot easier for me because the electronics is getting a lot better. If electronics is not your cup of tea then it is getting a lot worse with every electrical add on. I personally love the new fuel and ignition systems, great performance and decent MPG. My 97 Suburban got 15.6 MPG on a 550 mile trip before it was totalled, as a temporary replacement we got a 97 Plymouth Grand Voyager van and roughly same trip it got 18.5 MPG. I will gladly give up 3 MPG to ride in a Suburban. We are looking forward to purchasing a newer Suburban in the next year, 2001 or newer maybe even a brand new one. As far as tomorrow's cars, bring them on, it's great working on the new stuff everyday. I still like the old cars, but not as everyday cars and family haulers. Sorry I got so long winded, I will leave by saying if you drive a Suburban long enough you will love it and find it hard to drive anything else.

I just bought a solid '85 Suburban C20 454 w/ a 4.56 axle, as a (heh) commuter vehicle for my wife who works on a ranch less than 2 miles from our new house. So I'm only a neophyte Suburban enthusiast. But I think the "new vs. old" dilemma can only be solved on a case-by-case basis.

For us, we needed reasonably reliable transportation that could haul tack daily and horses once-in-a-while. The Suburban suited us perfectly, but when I looked at late model Suburbans I thought the going rate was a bit too high for the value. I got the distinct impression that the demand being created by a half million soccer moms salivating over Suburbans pushes up the price until you get far enough back in model years to find the Suburbans that didn't look "cute" anymore :) Then the prices really drop, and you get a huge value for the money...

If we were getting a Suburban as our primary vehicle I think we would have bought brand new, so we wouldn't be hung up by mechanical problems that screw up work schedules, etc.

Sean.