As a (hobbyist) drummer I've never understood the fascination with "retro" drums. I get that anything old automatically confers Cool Points upon the owner but drums from the 1960s are, to put it charitably, shit. The metal hardware is beyond flimsy, the shells rarely stay in round, and the (critical) bearing edges often look to have been cut with a butter knife. There are some gems to be found – a day on which everyone at the old Gretsch factory performed flawlessly and they happened to grab the most perfect wood and the strongest lugs and screws – but the quality is wildly inconsistent and generally poor. It's inarguable that while old drums look cooler to a lot of people, the "beginner" drums on the market today are vastly better than the best, most expensive ones made in the 1950s in terms of build quality, design, and sound.
The same is true of cars. Buy the cheapest new economy car available today and you're driving the technological, performance, and safety equivalent of a Rolls Royce from the 1980s. Old cars have a lot of panache and style, and people love them because they are reminders of what most people define as their Good Old Days. But when was the last time you drove a car built in, say, the 1960s or 1970s? They're terrible cars by modern standards. They're loud, primitive, lacking in all but the most rudimentary safety features, and they suck down oil and gas like a Formula 1 racer. They look cool and some of them drive quite well. You wouldn't want to drive one to work every day if you had the option of driving, say, a mid 2000s compact instead, and you certainly wouldn't want to get in an accident in one unless you're weary of life.
I recently came across this Motorweek video of a comparison test between the "Hot Hatches" of the 1986 model year. I daresay some of the older readers found themselves driving one of these vehicles at some point: the Volkswagen GTI, Acura Integra, Dodge Colt Turbo, Toyota Corolla FX16, and Ford Escort GT. As is the case today, these are cars that are intended to be affordable to the average new car buyer but with lively performance emphasized over luxury or interior space. The GTI (many generations down the road, so to speak) is still the most popular car in this segment today.
The most powerful car in that group of five boasts 123 horsepower. This is less than you would get in the most basic transportation type car today – and yet in 1986 these were "performance" cars. For example, pedestrian 2014 offerings like a new Ford Focus (160 hp) or Hyundai Accent (138 hp, and one of the very cheapest new vehicles for sale today) would blow the doors off of 1986's performance compacts. And their gas mileage, safety features, and creature comforts are all significantly better as well.
The lame excuses made by the auto industry for so many years have been exposed in the last few as fuel economy has finally started to improve sharply. For years they claimed that the technology was too expensive, yet every new generation of cars had dramatically increased horsepower. This horsepower arms race means that today even the dullest vehicles on the road (Camrys, etc) can be equipped with 270+ hp engines that would outperform a V8 Corvette or Ferrari from the 1970s. Hell, a modern kid-hauler SUV comes equipped with a more powerful engine than a Ferrari 348 or a 1996 Corvette. And if the technology to offer such an unnecessarily large amount of power can be offered affordably, then better fuel economy is also possible (since equal power can be achieved with successively smaller engines). Only recently have manufacturers started taking advantage of this, offering even expensive luxury cars (Audi A6, BMW 535, Cadillac ATS, etc) with 4-cylinder engines.
Obviously, comparing any technology with its predecessor from 1986 is going to reveal some dramatic changes, but the average (not all that interested in cars) driver has no idea how staggering the increase in power has been over the past two decades. In 1995, Cadillac's full-sized offerings featured 195 hp V8 engines. Today, not only are there engines literally less than half that size producing over 200 hp (VW's 2.0L 4 cyl in the Audi S3 is rated at an insane 296) but the largest Cadillac now comes with a 415 hp V6. What in the name of god the average elderly Cadillac driver needs with 415 hp is beyond me (other than that the rapidly ballooning weight of modern cars, with their frivolous tech toys and heavy safety accommodations) but he can drive with the confidence of a man who would have needed to pay $250,000 for an exotic sports car to get that kind of power in the 1990s.
As much as it pains me to say it, a choice between Steve McQueen's Mustang in Bullitt and a new 2014 Ford Focus would be no choice at all. And the latter could blow him away in a road race anyway.
Death Panel Truck says:
Cadillac doesn't market their cars to the elderly anymore. That much is obvious in their ads.
sallys dad says:
Ed, you're right on target on this one. I own a 51 Studebaker Starlight Coupe. Anyhow, when I'm showing it I often hear; "boy, they sure don't make em like they used to…" To which I always reply, "Thank God". I love my Stude but have absolutely no illusions that it's anything but a death trap if I'm ever unlucky enough to get into a serious accident.
By the way, I work in the auto industry and am amazed at the amount of power per liter we're getting these days. Volvo, Yes, Volvo has a 2.0L 4 Cyl coming to market that makes, Hold On to Your Hat, 450HP!!
(If you go to Google Images and enter "1950 Studebaker" my car is the first one that shows up – ocean in the background – It is a 51 but whoever posted it got the year wrong – 50 and 51 are similar)
sallys dad says:
OK I should have edited it better. I had the parenthetical comment between "Coupe." and "Anyhow,"
FMguru says:
The difference in quality is breathtaking. The family chariot growing up was a mid-70s American V8 (with vinyl roof! and 8-track player!) and I remember 1) sitting and waiting for it to warm up on cold mornings, 2) having to goose the ignition to get it to start up without flooding the engine (or running down the battery), and 3) the occasional backfire. I consider a small miracle and a concrete sign of Progress that I can put the key into my late 90s Accord and turn it and it will roar to life almost every time.
Another thing: cars back then were widely expected to fall apart sometime after 60,000 miles. A drivable car with more than 100,000 miles on the clock was a genuine miracle. By contrast, that late 90s Accord mentioned above has 265,000 miles on it and its still going strong.
LK says:
Your under-the-mustache parenthetical comment about weight hides a lot more than it seems at first. To take you up on the example, the original 1975 Golf GTI had a 110hp engine moving a ~900kg body. The current one has a 217hp unit for an almost 1400kg heft (thanks, Wikipedia!). A ~35% increase in power-per-weight ratio over almost 40 years sounds like a moderate growth curve to me. The way I would imagine it happening was Marketing hitting Engineering with the new safety requirements for the next model (this would be three years in advance or more), Engineering responds with the new stats for weight, top speed, fuel economy and acceleration assuming last model's power unit, Marketing then responds with "we can't sell this s&!t, go design a better engine!" and they end up compromising somewhere in the middle.
If anyone cares to pick up the task of graphing these stats for more than one generation of more than one model/maker, I'd be happy to pick the stats apart.
carrstone says:
And all that progress is thanks to that pillar of society – the American car worker.
Right?
Right.
Talisker says:
In "Raw Spirit", the late Iain Banks wrote about driving a 1970s Jaguar around the Scottish Highlands in 2003. He said the joy of the Jaguar was that, as it approached 70 mph, it was growling, vibrating, and felt like it was going really fast, so you felt no particular desire to break the speed limit. A modern hatchback at the same speed would be smooth, quiet, and have plenty of power in reserve, which would tempt you to go even faster and risk a speeding ticket.
sluggo says:
Ed
'a choice between Steve McQueen's Mustang in Bullitt and a new 2014 Ford Focus would be no choice at all.'
Like Jacqueline Bisset would ever go out with Ford Focus owner. I'll take the Mustang and the girl.
Well mostly says:
One thing I've noticed, in the driving Mecca of LA, is how few cars you see stranded (broken down) on the side of the road: overheated, blown tires, etc. Same on road trips out of the area. It's by far the exception now. Unlikely due to better owner maintenance. Still, a restored '57 Chevy grabs my eyes as a thing of beauty, and the sound of those old engines…….just warms the heart (and the atmosphere, unfortunately).
c u n d gulag says:
No argument – today's cars are far better.
Having said that, I still wish I had the '67 Camaro convertible I had from the spring of my last year in HS until the end of my first semester of college – blue, with white stripes, and all of the toys a boy could want. Particularly if he wanted to get girls.
I saved-up money from working with my father in a machine shop during the summers to buy it.
Man, that car was cool and fast and beautiful!!!
I had to sell it, because it started to need some major repair work, and I couldn't afford both it, and college. So, I sold it – but I made $400 on the deal!
FMguru says:
Hell, even tires are better. When was the last time you saw someone pulled over to change a flat?
Safety Man! says:
@FMguru
A cross section of the good old days of muscle cars and when you could afford college with a summer job…
Sock or Muffin? says:
I'll go along with the guys/gals here who said that there's just something visceral about antique vehicles that today's refined cars can't approach. Brother and I shared a 1968 AMC Javelin in high school (late 80s). It had a 343ci V8. Even for a small block that thing could smoke when you stomped down on it… when it ran. Endless electrical issues. You'd have to prop the choke open with a pencil sometimes to start it. It had been in the family since new though and we'd been rear ended when dad was driving it once. Slight dent in the bumper. Truck that hit us was totaled.
These days I have a 50 year old Vespa that I drive as often as I can. Got a good friend who designed for GM and now Kia who pretty much only owns/drives late 60s American cars. Sure my girlfriend's Civic runs like a top at 150K miles and still gets 50 mpg. But like Talisker said, it's the growling, vibrating… wind noise. Having only a lap belt, if anything. Watching the gas gauge move when you floor it. Stuff like that.
J.D. says:
This crash test video between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (which will never be mistaken for a luxury car) should tell you all you need to know about how far car safety has come:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
proverbialleadballoon says:
My old man had a '68 Mustang fastback back when my parents were dating. That car is a legend in this family, and Bullitt has always been a touchstone in my mind, picturing how cool they must have been, racing around in that sweet ride. Oddly, I own a '13 Focus, and even though she's quick and agile (2nd gear is a bit squishy, you gotta goose it a little more than you think, hence the 'poor' reviews regarding the trans, if you ever look it up), I did a double take on 160 hp, and had to see for myself. Everyone wants to beat their old man, and though it was years ago I could take him in say sports, the legend of the Mustang fastback endures, and now I'm looking forward to the dinner conversation the next time I see him.
@sluggo: post-2012, the Focus ain't your grandma's, I mean, Jacqueline Bissett's, Focus anymore
Emerson Dameron says:
@Well Mostly:
A lot of people in LA gave me shit for cruising around in a '92 Corrola, which I guess is supposed to be reserved for Mexicans. But I noticed that old Toyotas and Hondas are the only thing pre-'07 that I ever saw on the freeways. A lot of the improvement over time came from perfecting that sort of humble reliability.
NYD3030 says:
I drive a 2012 Subaru WRX. The powertrain in that car is a sublime work of engineering; 265hp, 4 cylinder 2.5L turbo with symmetrical AWD. It accelerates briskly, handles accurately (if a little rough) and in snow or ice with a set of winter tires puts most of the mom driven domestic land tanks you see on the road to shame.
Which is to say I fucking love my car. That is all.
BigHank53 says:
About a decade ago, the magazine Grassroots Motorsports borrowed a couple of the hottest sports cars from the the early 70s (a Porsche 911 and a V-12 Jaguar, if I recall correctly) and took them out to a test track to see how they held up in comparison to modern cars. Their tow vehicle was able to match the lap times of the vintage cars–not all that bad for a Honda minivan, eh? Bone stock except for some stickier tires.
Vintage vehicles are fabulous toys. As transportation they're crap: save enough money to buy a bicycle or bus pass or a modern scooter so you at least have a chance of making it to work.
quixote says:
For me, muscle cars just shout, "Stupid!"
All that growling and vibration is inefficiency made manifest. Which is okay if it's the best you can do, but these days, when the merest people-mover is an order of magnitude better, it says "I wanna show off." (See "stupid!" above.)
If you really want a car that adds to your cool factor, get an electric.
don says:
I take cabs. But I do still have a warm place in my heart for that circa 1970 VW wagon I first got high in.
BCBoat says:
I gawk at the $100,000 Camaros and Mustangs from the 60's and 70's and remember ball joints, distributors, points and plugs. Remember carburetors and chokes? Bias ply tires. Drum brakes and power steering that took 3/4 of a turn on the tiller to get a result. 4 or 5 turns lock to lock. I have (had) a '13 Focus Titanium Hatch that was seemingly built like a vault. Solid, reliable, handled like a road racer and gave 40 MPG on the interstate. Take that car back to the sixties and people would have thought "witchcraft"!!
BCBoat says:
To NYD3030
Subaru fan here too. On my second SVX from '97 and love it.
swkellogg says:
As I recall Tama really started the hardware revolution and Ludwig followed hot on their heels. Slingerland went kaput as a result of not moving with the hardware trends. Gretsch some how flew under the radar through much of the upheaval, but managed to survive.
But you're right about the stuff now, the cheapest Mapex and DW kits smoke the old shit.
FMguru says:
Reading the original Ian Fleming "James Bond" novels is good for this, too. One of them (it might have been Moonraker) had James driving around in his souped-up, top-of-the-line, Le Mans certified vehicle, trying to chase someone down on an English roadway, and reaching speeds of over NINETY MILES AN HOUR. Be still my heart!
Templar says:
Same goes for maintenance. Guy who worked as an engineering drafter for a lawn equipment manufacturer and former oil roughneck always complained about the 3 month, 3000 mile rule for oil changes. "You telling me that all the advances in engine design, metallurgy, and petroleum engineering and we should change the oil as much as we did when I was a kid?"
Phil Koop says:
"This horsepower arms race …"
Too bad this is NPF, otherwise I could mention that there is a case here for, umm, government intervention. The point being that "arms race" is exactly right – for everyone except a few track enthusiasts, high powered engines are positional goods; I only want 400HP because my neighbor has 350. But functionally both of us would be well-served with 200HP and in fact everyone else would be better off if that was all we had.
An analogous point can be made about SUV's. SUV's have less capacity and are less drivable than a station wagon laid out on the same platform (compare VW's Golf and Tiguan for an egregious example); the attraction is that the taller driving position allows one to see over other vehicles. But that only works as long as SUV's are unusual; once the road is flooded with them, the advantage is lost and everyone is worse off.
jeneria says:
I do love those old sexy beasts, but I'm far too practical. My first car (purchased in 1995) was an 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass. When I traded it in three years later, it had over 200,000 miles on the original engine. It was a beast. My second car was a POS Pontiac Grand Am that lasted three years before I traded it in on a 1998 Pontiac Bonneville (it was gold! And so awesome). I bought that car in Montana, drove it to Louisiana, and before moving to Wisconsin sold it for $900. I had it for six years. Currently, I own a Scion XD. I love that little car (I live in Milwaukee, on the East Side so parking is a definite consideration). I've had it three years, it's been in two wrecks, and gets about 35+ mpg.
Anonymouse says:
Phil Koop: "An analogous point can be made about SUV's. SUV's have less capacity and are less drivable than a station wagon laid out on the same platform "
I found that out when out-of-country extended family flew in for a family emergency and we couldn't all fit into my Accord. I went to rent a vehicle that could hold everyone; no SUV would do it. I ended up with a minivan that fit 7 adults and 3 kids.
Another problem with SUVs; people in them seem to believe they're lounging in their living rooms because they're so isolated from the road and other cars. If you want oblivious arrogance on the road, look to an SUV driver.
sinned34 says:
I'm currently driving a 2000 Pontiac Sunfire GT that I've been driving for eight years. It's all original (why would you even bother upgrading a Sunfire, anyways?) and is finally starting to nickel and dime me so much at 315,000 kms that I'm looking at replacing it.
I hope to "upgrade" to a six year old Honda Fit I've seen for sale by a local private seller.
Reince Your Priebus says:
@ Emerson Dameron
"A lot of people in LA gave me shit for cruising around in a '92 Corrola, which I guess is supposed to be reserved for Mexicans."
Lol! I suppose that car does have certain associations to people. My buddy still has the Accord that he bought in the mid-90s (95? I think). Not sure about the mileage but it's well into the six figures by now, and it's a goddamned tank. I think his wife and kid are gonna make him finally get rid of it. He wants another Accord but she's pushing hard for a Sonata. Me? I'm a Honda man but Hyundai's been looking good the past few years.
Jon says:
My 2011 370z (a hatchback, if you will) ran me $29k brand new for the sport version, and boasts 332hp, and 4.7s 0-60. It looks expensive, it drives expensive, but it's wicked cheap, wicked cheap to maintain, and wicked reliable. The only thing expensive about it are the tires ($1200 for a set of four off of tirerack).
Scepticus says:
I drove a 1974 Ford Maverick for 18 years (1983 – 2001) until the engine finally blew up. 302 V8, power steering, AC, 18 mpg highway … Of course, a car like that could only survive 27 years as a daily driver in the desert. (Also necessary: a certain degree of discretion about what to fix and what to "let go.")(Also also necessary: a certain degree of tolerance for "personality.")
My 2001 Honda Civic HX (not a hybrid) averages 42 mpg.
Scepticus says:
Before no one asks, I forgot to mention the other significant Detail of Longevity: 249K +change miles on that 1974 engine. The damage that was A Repair Too Far: the crankshaft broke when I stupidly floored an engine with 249,000 miles on it.
Scepticus says:
Although Ed's post isn't about drum set hardware quality, he may find this "evolution of the drum set 1865 – 1965" feature to be of interest: http://www.vicfirth.com/drumset-history/
Satrap says:
In my opinion advances in tires technology, and everything else that gets the power to the pavement, are definitely the most under-appreciated area of advancement. Powerful engines in road cars are nothing new. The 1930s saw inline 8s making 300+ horsepower, and muscle cars (pre-malaise) produced numbers which were impressive even by modern standards, and torque that could alter the Earth’s rotation. But everything between that motor and the ground was well…pretty lousy by any standard.
Better tires with higher heat/speed capability, stickier compound, refined transmission gearing, improvements in suspension technology, traction control, limited slip differentials, torque vectoring; all of these advances make it even possible to put the sort of power a “normal” car now makes, under the foot of the average consumer, without having to begin factoring acceptable losses into vehicle fatality statistics.. Even a fairly pedestrian “quick” car like a Mustang GT or Camaro SS would be a risky proposition if systems weren’t in place to keep the car from getting overly squirrelly, and slamming into the nearest stationary object the moment you mat the pedal.
This isn’t to say that we aren’t seeing more and more powerful cars. Something like the Challenger/Charger Hellcat with 707 horsepower would have been absolutely undriveable for any but the most highly trained and skilled drivers. But insane power and acceleration aren’t anything new (I’m looking at you Group B); it just was much more confined to high-end vehicles, and racing applications.
Leading Edge Boomer says:
My cars: 1969 VW Beetle (cylinder 3 ran hot, they all had head problems), 1975 Opel 1900 (nice car, but GM abandoned the European version, parts were hard to get), 1980 VW pickup truck (on Rabbit chassis, meh), 1990 Acura Integra, 2001 Audi A4 Quattro (still have but desperate to dump), 2010 Prius (got over the need to corner on rails, but electric motor-boosted low-end torque is fine in Power mode). Note the 10-year cycle, but in retirement I'm not commuting 350 miles/week for work.
My SO is about to buy a 2015 Lexus CT200h–same integrated power plant as the current Prius, but all that Lexus-ness. Highest-rated hybrid/electric in recent Consumer Reports.
The German cars were unreliable relative to the Japanese cars. That Audi has been an expensive nightmare to maintain. $2K for a clutch replacement! Agree completely that today's cars are so much better, in several dimensions.
BruceJ says:
This is one reaons the Mazda Miata was such a ginormous hit: it had the personality of a 1960's two-seater roadster without all the hassles (or Lucas electrics.)
I had a friend who had a Fiat SPyder that was a huge blast to drive, at least until you made a right turn a little too fast, which cause the fuel pump to quit.
Me I beat a 1980 Honda Civic Wagon into dust, and in 2010 bought a new VW TDI Jetta which has been absolutely trouble-free, monster mileage (35mpg in the city, on a regular basis) car that feels like a frigging rolls compared to the old, spartan honda.
Mothra says:
I had a VW GTI. Bright green. Piece of shit. Yeah, it was perky on the road. When it ran.
cromartie says:
You mean CAFE Standards work? But my local (R) Congressman told me that's Communism.
PhoenixRising says:
Yup. I'm driving a '13 Chevy Spark–4 cly 1L engine, 39mpg overall, plenty of pull except if I want to pass on the 5% grade that's in a 75mph zone, 12 airbags, $13K out the door with power everything. And the seats have a snazzy vine pattern woven in to match the interior…which is also lime green. My parents had a '73 Maverick that wasn't half the car this is, and in 1974 dollars they spent…approximately…more than it was worth.
I drove around town in a 68 Mustang, which I'd always wanted one of, for 3 years and about 2300 miles in the early Aughts. I'd replaced the original equipment with bucket seats so that I wasn't a tapped bumper from whiplash, and upgraded the carb & air intake to improve on the original 289 that had, shall we say, the kind of performance that explains the 351 Windsor engine that replaced it.
That car handled like a couch: I had to use my entire upper body to parallel park it, at a time in my life when I bench pulled 100 lbs. And slow? I couldn't get out of my own way on a 2% grade over a mile. and hauling ass up a real hill required me to make two trips. The one time I took it out on wet pavement was the last, despite the $900 I spent on new tires the day I bought it.
That car almost killed me (at least) on my kid's first day of kindergarten. We got there, despite the fact that a plastic grocery bag from the garage wrapped around the air filter and caused a stall as I turned left across 3 lanes of traffic. Once I got home alive & determined that my wife would never find out, I put an ad up & told her that I'd decided to sacrifice the classic car so we could pay for daycare without worrying. (Hope she's not a reader.)
Paul says:
RE DRUMS: Quality control has gotten better, but beyond that you're overstating the case.
Most Grestch kits, and plenty of Ludwigs, from the old days have much better shells than most modern kits. Slingerland's ply shells were spottier, but Slingerland's collectable niche is the Radio Kings, and NO ONE makes kit drums like that today (except Craviotto, but that's the whole boutique thing, not mass production at all). Today's cheap kits are all in round because it's so easy to work with poplar and lots of glue. Hardware? Forget it — today's hardware is well designed but made out of the cheapest pot metal. It's trash. I swear if you took the chrome off a Pearl stand you could fill pencils with it.
And the best, most expensive cymbals you can buy new are TRYING to sound as good as vintage Ks and As.
Skepticalist says:
Everyone's definition of old cars is relative.
My experience of getting plastered all over the dashboard of our 1951 Packard when I was a kid, would certainly have been different if there had been seatbelts. Seatbelt installation of course would have "ruined" the auto industry as we were told for another decade or so.
The car was in better shape than the family for awhile.
john fremont says:
As a vintage drum dealer told me last year, Ludwig drums from the early 1960's are done pretty good. Then a certain band got real popular in 1964 and their drummer provided a lot of free marketing for Ludwig drums every time they appeared on TV. Ludwig couldn't keep up with demand so their quality went down after the mid-1960's.
jon says:
I remember some howling when Obama announced new mileage standards in 2009 or 10. Not from the carmakers, just from the oil industry bootlickers. Somehow the industry survived the harsh bailout billions and those newer efficiency standards. Why? Because they could.
Gave my Elantra to the teenaged son. It's a lot like the 85 Civic I started driving with. Have a 2015 Forester that gets the mileage of that Civic, but now I have airbags, cameras, stability control, all-wheel drive, alerts that tell me to change the oil, and more. I will take the new stuff over the old any day, even if I do have a postal jeep to tinker with.
Graham says:
Sadly, as someone who thinks Jay Leno has the BEST toys in the entire world, I have to agree.
My 85 year old mother mother has a 1.5 litre Hyundai Getz (automatic). From time to time my brother and I drive it. Every time we do we turn to each other and grin and say, "jeez this thing goes, dunnit?" It amazes us. And it's pretty much the cheapest car you can buy here. My mother doesn't hang around in it, either.
And we feel that if she comes across a 59 Chev, she might come out of it alright too.
There is a Top Gear clip of the boys putting up an Aston Martin DB5 against a bog standard Honda 2.4 family car over the quarter mile. As someone who thinks that Aston (for reasons entirely other than the JB associations) is just about the prettiest sports car ever made, it is embarrassing.
Can't find that particular clip, but this says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwiO_bYe3Po
And yes, flat tyres are almost a thing of the past and a broken down car on the freeway is a much rarer sight these days. I think modern fuel injection explains a lot of the reliability/starting improvements.
Tom says:
Not to nitpick, but you mention the 535 as a car with an i4 engine whereas the 535 has the twin-turbo i6 and the 528 has the turbo i4.
My father worked in F1 back in the day of turbo-4s. They were getting over 1000 HP at the time out of what I recall was a 1.2 or 1.3L i4. It was only a matter of time before some of that tech made it in to consumer cars. Volvo actually has plans to go to all 4 cylinder cars sooner rather than later.
Anonymouse says:
@Skepticalist; seatbelt use became mandatory in my home state sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s. I remember one summer I was home from college and working locally, and my mother (born in the 1940s) asked for a ride somewhere, but REFUSED to put on her seatbelt because (in her words): "she'd rather DIE than be uncomfortable". Lest you think that was kidding; it was not. I explained that I couldn't take her in my car without a seatbelt because IT WAS ILLEGAL and she told me never to darken her door again (also not kidding). That's the 'Murican stupidity for you.
Xynzee says:
@Graham: I was hoping to find the earlier part of that segment where Clarkson is going over the specs of the DB-5 where he says Aston said this and that about the car, but the reality was far less, so what happened? In true Clarkson style he looks at the camera and says, "They lied!"
Xynzee says:
@Anonymouse: I came to visit relos in the Great Southern Land from the States back in the mid-70s. I was 8 at the time and I remember being told to put my seatbelt on. I asked why, and was told, " It's the Law!" To which I said, "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"
The irony about seat belt laws, is that while it was gub'mint that passed and enforces these freedumz killin' laws* after much agitation, telephoning, letter-writing and handwringing by the bothers for a "problem they didn't realised they had". It was actually insurance companies that stumped up the cash for the whole drive and wanted these laws.
Because:
A) catastrophic head trauma is cheaper to prevent—are they paying for the enforcement?—than to have to pay the rehab or maintain the storage of the vegetable.
B) it provides an additional out for not covering someone who was breaking the law by not wearing their seatbelt.
*we all know it is Obama who was behind them. ;)
Graham says:
Xynzee, Yes I was trying to find part one (in which they race the Honda – oh the shame) on Youtube, but it has disappeared.
Worse, I appear not to have saved it to HDD. In searching, however, I came across part two of which I was hitherto ignorant. Joy!
The Aston looks a little more lively in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZG63ZAGQ-I
Awesome, in fact.
Major Kong says:
I've owned quite a few 1960s cars. They were a lot of fun but I wouldn't trade my 2004 Audi for a single one of them.
It's more reliable, far more comfortable, gets better gas mileage, has more features, handles infinitely better, plus goes through the snow with AWD. Even performance wise, if you look at the actual numbers, it's quicker than all but the hottest of 60s muscle cars.
I currently have a 1957 DeSoto FireFlite. It's a lot of fun to drive but it's not a very good car.
Even with the seat belts I had installed, it's not a very safe vehicle. In a front end collision the rigid steering column becomes a spear right through the driver's chest. The dash has a bunch of protruding metal buttons that would punch a hole right through your skull.
Even with power brakes I have to really anticipate my stops.
I drive it very defensively. Even though it has the power to keep up rush hour traffic, it doesn't have the brakes or handling to do it safely.
Mayya says:
I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of this article, but I will say this: I owned a new Corolla FX in the mid 80s and I don't remember it being marketed as a performance car, but rather as an economy car. I loved that little car, but certainly it was devoid of features we take for granted today. But at the time it was like The Car of the Future, since our other car was a '68 Chevy Impala, an enormous brute of a car with a huge engine displacement, which in its heyday was viewed as a mid size family car.
Major Kong says:
A 1968 Impala was considered to be a "full size" Chevrolet. Their mid sized model would been a Malibu, which was still a big car compared to your Corolla FX.
Tim H. says:
A thing not mentioned is how long it took to develop decent engine management hardware, Bendix started in the 40s, Chrysler joined them in the 50s, licensed to Bosch in the 60s. Proper ECM boxes showed up in the 80s. And these new, high power engines would be unpleasant to drive with a 3 speed automatic, the new transmissions help a lot. So yes, Detroit did some stalling on CAFE standards, but the hardware truly wasn't ready yet, and don't look for 60s style hardware to come back, no matter what the Republi-tards elect.
Bitter Scribe says:
Another good thing about today's cars is their resistance to rust. Cars used to get rusted through in a few years. These days you can spend hours by the side of a busy road and barely see a speck of rust.