old cars v.s. new cars

[V8slayer]

I can understand people who like antique jewllery or furniture. Woodwork and gold work reached a plateau a long time ago. Craftsmanship of the old days was probably more refined.

But old cars? 300SL gullwing? Jaguar E-type? Lambo Miura? Carrera RS?

These cars are slower, not as reliable, use more fuel, less safe, probably rust easier. What's the point?

It's like someone who has an obsession with a 286 computer with a 30MB hard drive, takes two hours to process anything and breaks down every hour.

[Raz_Kaz]

They are vintage, stepping stones of the cars today. A history of the progress in sports/luxury cars.

[curtis73]

I love the oldies. They don't offer the same quiet ride and the trade offs are usually pretty big, but nothing makes me feel more proud than cruising in to my local hangout in my 73 Impala Station wagon with 60k original and a 454 that I built with my own hands starting from a bare block; every nut and bolt I assembled myself. 425 hp, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and I designed it myself.

I could do that with a newer car, but older cars seem to have fewer limitations (both legally and conceptually). I can modify my 96 in the same way, but sifting through the thirty miles of wiring, tight engine bay, and hacking the OBD2 computer make it a less rewarding venture to me. More work, less outcome. Not to mention a pain to get smogged legally.

I just like the classics. I love the smooth quiet ride I get in my friend's Lexus, but I'd rather have it my way.

Another big plus of older cars is that they're cheap and easy to fix. An alternator for my 73 wagon is $26 and can be replaced in 20 minutes. Try that with a Saturn. $150 for the alternator and you have to remove the passenger side axle shaft to get to it. I bought new brakes for the wagon... complete. master cylinder, calipers, wheel cylinders, pads, shoes, hoses, and the whole bag cost $121 WITH the core charges. After I returned the cores it was under $100. That's what I call cheap.

[NISSANSPDR]

Some of the older cars are faster than the newer ones...remember...older cars didnt have so many electronic safeguards, airbags, ABS, traction control, DSC, etc...so new supercars are heavier and have to conform w/emissions sometimes...

In this video I watched from Top Gear (BBC), the XJ220...a car that's 12 years old...beat out the Pagani Zonda S...the Jaguar had less than half the size in displacement but it still smoked it in the 1/4 mile

The McLaren F1...a car that's 11 years old...does 241 MPH...the Enzo...supposedly "the best Ferrari" only does 218 MPH

The Ferrari F40...18 years old (my personal favorite Ferrari) does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds...faster than the Enzo and Carrera GT and Pagani...

So older does not mean worse...

[V8slayer]

Those are not the cars I'm talking about. You're right, where the technology is not as far behind and there are less restraints, you can have a ten year old car that's even faster.

My bewilderment is people who cling to the distant past. Like the cars I mentioned and Aston Martin DB5's and Golf MKI's.

Like I said, some antiques are worth collecting, some aren't IMO. And I think cars being technologically progressive, the old ones should be as redundant as old computers.

BTW, Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson is the only person I've ever heard of quoting a 3.2 0-60 time for the F40. More common figures are 3.5 and 3.7s. Do you have another credible source for that figure. Clarkson is know for making passionate arguements rather than ones based on fact.

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by NISSANSPDR

The Ferrari F40...18 years old (my personal favorite Ferrari) does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds...faster than the Enzo and Carrera GT and Pagani...

Not quite. Add 6 or 7 tenths to that sprint time and you'd be closer to the truth

But you're right. Newer doesn't necessarily mean better. The 30 year old Carrera 2.7 RS is still reckoned to be a phenomenal driving machine. The F40 is nearly 20 years old and is still thought by many to be the 'purest' supercar ever.

Lower down the scale? A lot of people would say the E30 M3 is superior to the E46 M3. Sure, it's slower in a straight line and would get its ass handed to it on a track, but some argue that it's a better driver experience and BMW's best ever M car. I find the E34 M5 much more confidence-inspiring than its successor. Golf mk1 Gti? I havent driven one personally but from what ive read / heard, it's a fun, chuckable car to drive. Compare that to the fat, sad mk4 Gti that probably weighs twice as much.

The point is that yes, while new cars are safer, more aerodynamic, technologically advanced etc, they aren't often styled with the flair that you see in some classics. They are also heavier due to safety features (airbags etc) and less edgy due to corporate responsibility and the resultant safety technology that features in so called sports cars. The Merc SLK350 is a good example. Here we have a 270bhp two-seater, and Merc won't let you get the back out. Is it any wonder people cling to the more 'organic' driving experiences of old?

[NISSANSPDR]

Originally Posted by V8slayer

My bewilderment is people who cling to the distant past. Like the cars I mentioned and Aston Martin DB5's and Golf MKI's.

Like I said, some antiques are worth collecting, some aren't IMO. Clarkson is know for making passionate arguements rather than ones based on fact.

1st off

Have you EVER seen Ian Fleming's Goldfinger w/James Bond, man? If that isn't reason by itself to want to own that car.

"Ejector seat...you must be joking." - 007

"I never joke about my work..." - M

2nd off

I never said all old cars are worth it...I know there's some cars made in America in the late 70's and early 80's that are boat sized and ugly as sin...I wouldnt collect those...just go to the collector's section of ebaymotors.com and see some of the older cars and you will see their value...sometimes it's not about the money...it's about the legacy, the thrill, the joy, the drive, the experience, the aura, the pathos. It's not just about new leather and navigation and power steering.

3rd off

Driving to me is not about facts...true the have their place and I am not going to argue that they dont have their merit...but driving is beyond paper facts and crude info/data...it's about being one w/the car and road and watching your smile grow in every mile you are seated in that car and never wanting to let go of that car. Like Steve McQueen's character, Michael Delaney said in Le Mans

When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.

So for me...since I dont engage in professional racing...a Sunday cruise in any car that I mention as being a prefered ride...like the F40, the DB5, etc...is like that...everything in between driving is just like dead air on the radio.

[GTStang]

Not old cars are worth keeping or loving but there are soem old cars that do things that no new cars can do now. Ex:


Shelby Cobra 427 S/C: Try to name me one car in that last 10 years that can give you want this car can. I'm not talking bout the performance numbers put the whole package that is the car. Try to name me another car with the same HP/torque but put in a raw bare minium set-up, all wrapped in a thin sheet aluminium skin that is the only thing between you and the road when you stomp it at 120mph and still smokes the tires, while the wind is whipping through ya hair.

Aston Martin DB5: Name me a car in the last 10 years that has the styling and the handmade craftsmanship of this vehicle. You can't because that styling is no longer what is in style and even Bentley and Rolls Royce don't hand-make everything in the car like they use to just 15 years ago.

These are cars that can never be re-created, the have there own character and intangibles. You need to be able to look beyond the machine and see the beauty/art of some cars like you do in antique jewelry/furniture like you claim to understand.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by NISSANSPDR

I never said all old cars are worth it...I know there's some cars made in America in the late 70's and early 80's that are boat sized and ugly as sin...I wouldnt collect those....

You mean like this?

[calgary_redneck]

If car choices where practical we would all be driving toyota echo's. The fact of the matter is that old cars are part of history. Most who own them enjoy building them and mantaining them as much driving them. They are hardly compairable to a computer which is a purely untilitarian device. Just because its new doesn't always mean its better anyway

[Kurtdg19]

Not everybody has a type of 'passion' for the love of older cars than some do. I love older cars. I still would have absolutely no problem in owning a newer car to drive day in and out (actually, I prefer it), but owning an older car in which you have made physical contriubtions in (getting hands nitty and gritty) maintaining it feel very rewarding. As curtis said, the cost of parts are dirt cheap and EASY (for the most part) to actually perform compared to newer cars. With my 88firebird, it cost me $110 to replace disc brakes, calipers, pads, and rubber brake lines. Subtract the core cost of the calipers and your looking at $90. Overall, its a great learning experience that everyone should at least indulge into once.

So to sum it up. Newer cars are much easier to live with, but much harder to work on. Your everyday backyard mechanic couldn't even dream of working on a new car without being a certified technician.

[feenix z]

why do i like old cars? Cuz there was once a time when even the svelte Lotus Elise would have been considered a porker. And if you look at some, like the aforementioned RS, it had performance similar to the 350z. And also, there was a lot less platform sharing in those days. I'll use the 350z example again. It shares underpinnings with the Altima. Good car, but it's about the attatched stigma, and stigma is what the old cars are all about.