while I would says cars are always getting better - there have been some backwards years. like the late 70s & early 80's
^ This.
2013 is the best year for cars I know of. Sure, a lot of my old favorites are dead and gone, or changed into something that doesn't do "it' for me. But many new have taken their place. Pretty much ANY small car will run rings around a stock Fiero. '67-'69 Firebird? Yes, it's high on my personal list, but any new ponycar will be immeasurably better. And most sedans will do just as well.
What caused the "backwards years", you ask? Emissions controls, but they had to be done. Safety standards, but I wouldn't want to drive without seat belts! Fuel economy standards? How can that be a bad thing in the long run?
My vote goes to 1950. They didn't just build cars, they made them. Every nut an bolt oozed style and beauty. ... I wish I could have lived back then...
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
You never had to set valves/adjust lifters or blow a head gasket on a flathead 6 or 8 did ya?
Ah, yes. Nostalgia for something that never really existed. Camelot, 1950.
Don't get me wrong ... I love old cars. The 1937 Cord 812SC "Sportsman Convertible Coupe" is just about my favorite of all the cars I've been privileged to drive, and I did love the 1950 Jaguar XK120 that was my daily driver for one magical summer in 1962, but here is some of the reality of most cars from 1950:
Oil and filter change were required every 2500 to 3000 miles; grease the chassis, clean and gap the spark plugs, service the fuel strainer, and re-oil the air filter while you're at it
Replace spark plugs, as well as the breaker points and condenser in the distributor, every 12,000 miles
Buy new tires (or have the old retreaded) every ~15,000 miles
Every nut, bolt, and screw may indeed have "oozed style and beauty," but they were probably rusted solid when you went to perform any maintenance
Replace shocks every ~20,000 miles
No power steering
No air conditioning
Ineffective heating and defrosting
Ineffective, vacuum-operated windshield wipers that slowed or stalled completely when driving uphill
Puny 6-volt electrical system, with a weak generator and chronically dim headlights and tail lights
No seat belts (your insurance company lobbied against them: "racing equipment")
A rigid steering column that became lethal in a frontal collision
10 to 12 mpg was considered very good mileage
Ineffective drum brakes that were highly prone to fading when dry and provided no braking whatsoever when wet
Dismal handling
Chronic (and often dangerous) front-end shimmy from worn steering components
It was virtually unheard of for an engine to reach 100,000 miles without a major overhaul
I'll add more items as I remember them.
Incidentally, most 1950-model-year cars were still evolutionary versions of mid to late 1930s designs. The disruption of WW-II and the materials shortages that followed, coupled with postwar customer demand that would settle for almost anything on wheels, meant that it was 1952 or 1953 before any truly new car model designs began appearing in dealer showrooms.
These are the "good old days." Wait and see.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-22-2013).]
IP: Logged
01:37 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
I had forgotten how badly the old cars smelled while running until being around some lately.
how bad?? I dont know man. The gear head in me loves the smell of a slightly rich motor. Im not talking choking gagging rich. Just that little bit rich at idle knowing its waiting for you to slam the peddle and open the primary's and secondaries and scream down the road. Its what I hate about modern cars. For the most part i just don't get the feeling anymore. Yea they can make 500hp and be quite and smooth. But something about that classic american feel. Nice cam lope nice deep exhaust and that hint of raw fuel in the morning. Now for best cars yea modern are better. I would never want to trust my 1970's carburated motor to fire up on the first hit of the key every morning at 0 degrees. We have a good thing now a days. Get your self a nice modern reliable daily and stick the classic in the garage for weekends and weekday cruises.
IP: Logged
06:06 AM
css9450 Member
Posts: 5575 From: Glen Ellyn, Illinois, USA Registered: Nov 2002
Replace spark plugs, as well as the breaker points and condenser in the distributor, every 12,000 miles
Buy new tires (or have the old retreaded) every ~15,000 miles
Every nut, bolt, and screw may indeed have "oozed style and beauty," but they were probably rusted solid when you went to perform any maintenance
Replace shocks every ~20,000 miles
No power steering
No air conditioning
Ineffective heating and defrosting
Ineffective, vacuum-operated windshield wipers that slowed or stalled completely when driving uphill
Puny 6-volt electrical system, with a weak generator and chronically dim headlights and tail lights
No seat belts (your insurance company lobbied against them: "racing equipment")
A rigid steering column that became lethal in a frontal collision
10 to 12 mpg was considered very good mileage
Ineffective drum brakes that were highly prone to fading when dry and provided no braking whatsoever when wet
Dismal handling
Chronic (and often dangerous) front-end shimmy from worn steering components
It was virtually unheard of for an engine to reach 100,000 miles without a major overhaul
And remember how each car had its own peculiar technique or "personality" when it came to starting it in cold or wet weather (Pump the gas twice, then feather the pedal just slightly while turning the key.... If that doesn't work, pump the gas one more time - just once - and try the key again. If it still won't start, now you have to wait an hour and try again). I think every car my family had while I was growing up had its own peculiarities that made them tough to start in certain conditions. Do it wrong, and it would refuse to start at all.
IP: Logged
08:19 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Ill agree with Jake as the best single year. Ill go a bit farther and say most of the 60s cars. They were all built like tanks, reliable, and had individual style. While newer cars like say Camaros, may blow away the 67-69 Camaros, they dont have the style, class and personality of the old originals. If offered a mint condition 67 or a brand new 2013 model, Id jump on the 67 without blinking.
IP: Logged
05:46 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Ah, yes. Nostalgia for something that never really existed. Camelot, 1950.
Don't get me wrong ... I love old cars. The 1937 Cord 812SC "Sportsman Convertible Coupe" is just about my favorite of all the cars I've been privileged to drive, and I did love the 1950 Jaguar XK120 that was my daily driver for one magical summer in 1962, but here is some of the reality of most cars from 1950:
Oil and filter change were required every 2500 to 3000 miles; grease the chassis, clean and gap the spark plugs, service the fuel strainer, and re-oil the air filter while you're at it
Replace spark plugs, as well as the breaker points and condenser in the distributor, every 12,000 miles
Buy new tires (or have the old retreaded) every ~15,000 miles
Every nut, bolt, and screw may indeed have "oozed style and beauty," but they were probably rusted solid when you went to perform any maintenance
Replace shocks every ~20,000 miles
No power steering
No air conditioning
Ineffective heating and defrosting
Ineffective, vacuum-operated windshield wipers that slowed or stalled completely when driving uphill
Puny 6-volt electrical system, with a weak generator and chronically dim headlights and tail lights
No seat belts (your insurance company lobbied against them: "racing equipment")
A rigid steering column that became lethal in a frontal collision
10 to 12 mpg was considered very good mileage
Ineffective drum brakes that were highly prone to fading when dry and provided no braking whatsoever when wet
Dismal handling
Chronic (and often dangerous) front-end shimmy from worn steering components
It was virtually unheard of for an engine to reach 100,000 miles without a major overhaul
I'll add more items as I remember them.
Incidentally, most 1950-model-year cars were still evolutionary versions of mid to late 1930s designs. The disruption of WW-II and the materials shortages that followed, coupled with postwar customer demand that would settle for almost anything on wheels, meant that it was 1952 or 1953 before any truly new car model designs began appearing in dealer showrooms.
These are the "good old days." Wait and see.
I literally owned dozens and dozens of 60s cars. as to your list
Some I changed points and plugs in, some I never did I only remember buying a few tires the whole decade I still get 60s cars (my 66 Dodge for ex...every single nut, bolt and screw came out that I tried.) I dont remember ever putting on over a few sets of shocks on any I dont like AC all my heaters defrosters worked great...except VWs I generally dont wear seat belts unless bad weather or long trips because I simply dont like fooling with them I kept the all drum brakes on my Coronet when I restored it. They were not power, but adequate even with the BB. Orig v8 engine still ran fine for 4 years after I bought it, till I put in the BB. Never been opened. That engine still running in another guys car. During the restoration, I didnt even need to replace anything in the front but upper A arm bushings. No shimmy or vibration at all...just as good as my new car. I did have to replace a leaking pinion seal. Ive only ever had a few engines failures out of the hundreds Ive had, mostly all with over 150-175K miles
IP: Logged
06:02 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I literally owned dozens and dozens of 60s cars. as to your list
I was commenting specifically on the 1950 model year, which were essentially late 1930s designs with "new" trim accents (often chrome) added. Some of my comments were based on personal observations, some on the car manufacturers' recommended service schedules. The "60s" models were two or three whole design generations later, and they were much improved.
That said, you are certainly free to prefer any year of car you like. Your car, your choice. Me? I can't pick just one year.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-23-2013).]
IP: Logged
06:57 PM
PFF
System Bot
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
Not as bad because there was little engine wear. Engine fumes were vented out a road tube, not burned in the exhaust like more modern cars. After the engine rings wore some, blow-by increased and smoke coming out of the road tube was more noticeable, especially at idle. There was no catalytic converter on the exhaust and the gas tank was vented to the atmosphere. The combination of odors wasn't pleasant but seemed normal at the time.
Ill agree with Jake as the best single year. Ill go a bit farther and say most of the 60s cars. They were all built like tanks, reliable, and had individual style. While newer cars like say Camaros, may blow away the 67-69 Camaros, they dont have the style, class and personality of the old originals. If offered a mint condition 67 or a brand new 2013 model, Id jump on the 67 without blinking.
I had a 2010 SS Camaro and have a C6 and those cars have no sole. That and you need a degree in electrical engineering to work on them. The old cars had raw power while new cars have all kinds of limiters and bullshi*. New cars get slapped w "gas guzzler tax". My 6 spd Camaro forces you to shift from 1st to 4th gear when you don't stomp on it. That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen! I would just double clutch it to avoid bogging the engine down. When you do that you only get about 12-13 mpg in town! New cars get only about 5-7 mpg better than their beastly forefathers. The old cars sounded good whereas the new stuff has to be super quiet so you have to floor it to hear the motor at all. The style of the old cars is second to none! I think that an old car with modern technology blows away anything on the market today.
Bottom line - new cars suck. That is just my two cents.
IP: Logged
11:36 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
I was commenting specifically on the 1950 model year, which were essentially late 1930s designs with "new" trim accents (often chrome) added. Some of my comments were based on personal observations, some on the car manufacturers' recommended service schedules. The "60s" models were two or three whole design generations later, and they were much improved.
That said, you are certainly free to prefer any year of car you like. Your car, your choice. Me? I can't pick just one year.
sorry, misunderstood your list...thought you were talking about all older cars (carb era).
I dont recall any funny smells from old cars. I DO remember the stench of rotten eggs when they first started catalytic converters in 70s. Maybe your referring to a plastic smell from all the vinyl interiors...leather was rare. An oil burning newer car smells the same as any older oil burner.
IP: Logged
11:47 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I dont recall any funny smells from old cars ... Maybe your referring to a plastic smell from all the vinyl interiors...
That was spark1, not me. I do remember that some 1950s cars could be pretty smelly at idle, especially when cold, due to incomplete fuel atomization in the carburetor combined with weak spark for ignition and plentiful crankcase emissions due to large piston clearances and poor ring sealing.
Window (especially windshield) fogging due to outgassing of the plasticizers in vinyl materials when the car's interior heated up could be pretty bad back then, too, but I think that's a different issue.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-27-2013).]
