1970 vs 2016 auto's

[Iceweasel]

Ford Pinto, I let mine run totally out of oil, it stopped running and I went and got 4 quarts of oil , put it in car and drove off. do that today

I think I've been stuck behind you.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I did the whole thing. even changed over the running lights and turn signals.
also did the Euro lights on the back. My backup lights are like freaking stadium lights, I have a concern with starting the woods on fire when I back out of my driveway.

Nice. I want to do that someday to my F150. I replaced the yellowing lights with more modern after market replacements. $70 and it spiffed up the front end nicely.

its cheaper to upgrade existing than it is to buy new.
my truck new now is listing on the lot at 72k. I dont know how people do it. I think when I bought my new in 06 it was listed at 46 and I got it for 38. how they can justify doubling the price over that short a period of time is beyond me. Except when I bought mine the GMC stood for either General Motors Corporation or Gay Mans Car (friend keeps insisting thats what it stands for, but he drives Ford so what does he know anyway) and now, GMC stands for Government Motors Corporation, maybe they had to double their prices in order to pay back the bailout?

 

[PeterGriffin]

I get the nostalgia of older cars and it would be nice to have a Sunday driver, but screw that as a daily driver. I've set the gap and dwell and greased enough ball joints and rod ends to last me several lifetimes, thankyouverymuch. Seriously, "back in the day" it seemed like every weekend there was always something to do, and if your Made in America 50's-80's vintage car made it 100K miles you threw a party. Now 100K is when you can expect your first "tune up", which really means spark plugs.

Sometimes I get frustrated since newer cars are pretty well impossible for me to work on apart from brakes/suspension, but then I remember, it's rare you have to work on them.

For me it's the body, not the technology. If I was rich I have all the state of the art running gear, engine, suspension, etc on as bone stock looking as I could get it. Yeah, the solid metal dash would need something too. Giant airbag?

Ford did not make the Gremlin.

I think it was AMC without looking it up. Every car was shit.

Yes it was AMC, they also made that hideous monstrosity commonly known as the Pacer.

On the plus side AMC brought us JEEP which is the reason Chrysler bought them, it was the only thing of value that AMC had to offer.

Didn't they just tweak the military version.

And what a wonder they did for Harley! Almost killed the brand.

American Motors never had anything to do with Harley Davidson. You're thinking of AMF, American Machine & Foundry. Bowling magnates....lol.

I had an AMF Harley what a peice of shit.

I did a clutch on a friends HD from that vintage. Evidently AMF was saving all their engineering and manufacturing expertise for their bowling alleys.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Ford did not make the Gremlin.

I think it was AMC without looking it up. Every car was shit.

Yes it was AMC, they also made that hideous monstrosity commonly known as the Pacer.

On the plus side AMC brought us JEEP which is the reason Chrysler bought them, it was the only thing of value that AMC had to offer.

Didn't they just tweak the military version.

And what a wonder they did for Harley! Almost killed the brand.

American Motors never had anything to do with Harley Davidson. You're thinking of AMF, American Machine & Foundry. Bowling magnates....lol.

Harley, bowling,, either way your balls are getting slammed around.

 

[Iceweasel]

I did the whole thing. even changed over the running lights and turn signals.
also did the Euro lights on the back. My backup lights are like freaking stadium lights, I have a concern with starting the woods on fire when I back out of my driveway.

Nice. I want to do that someday to my F150. I replaced the yellowing lights with more modern after market replacements. $70 and it spiffed up the front end nicely.

its cheaper to upgrade existing than it is to buy new.
my truck new now is listing on the lot at 72k. I dont know how people do it. I think when I bought my new in 06 it was listed at 46 and I got it for 38. how they can justify doubling the price over that short a period of time is beyond me. Except when I bought mine the GMC stood for either General Motors Corporation or Gay Mans Car (friend keeps insisting thats what it stands for, but he drives Ford so what does he know anyway) and now, GMC stands for Government Motors Corporation, maybe they had to double their prices in order to pay back the bailout?

Yeah, I'm not blowing that kind of money on auto. My F150 has about 150k and runs like a top. I don't joke about the Ford vs. Chevy thing anymore, some guys take that shit way serious.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I did the whole thing. even changed over the running lights and turn signals.
also did the Euro lights on the back. My backup lights are like freaking stadium lights, I have a concern with starting the woods on fire when I back out of my driveway.

Nice. I want to do that someday to my F150. I replaced the yellowing lights with more modern after market replacements. $70 and it spiffed up the front end nicely.

its cheaper to upgrade existing than it is to buy new.
my truck new now is listing on the lot at 72k. I dont know how people do it. I think when I bought my new in 06 it was listed at 46 and I got it for 38. how they can justify doubling the price over that short a period of time is beyond me. Except when I bought mine the GMC stood for either General Motors Corporation or Gay Mans Car (friend keeps insisting thats what it stands for, but he drives Ford so what does he know anyway) and now, GMC stands for Government Motors Corporation, maybe they had to double their prices in order to pay back the bailout?

Yeah, I'm not blowing that kind of money on auto. My F150 has about 150k and runs like a top. I don't joke about the Ford vs. Chevy thing anymore, some guys take that shit way serious.

I like both ford and chevy. you can joke all you want, I dont really care.
But here.
Ford F150 2004-2008 Smoked Halo Projector Headlights and LED Tail Ligh

 

[gipper]

I did the whole thing. even changed over the running lights and turn signals.
also did the Euro lights on the back. My backup lights are like freaking stadium lights, I have a concern with starting the woods on fire when I back out of my driveway.

Nice. I want to do that someday to my F150. I replaced the yellowing lights with more modern after market replacements. $70 and it spiffed up the front end nicely.

its cheaper to upgrade existing than it is to buy new.
my truck new now is listing on the lot at 72k. I dont know how people do it. I think when I bought my new in 06 it was listed at 46 and I got it for 38. how they can justify doubling the price over that short a period of time is beyond me. Except when I bought mine the GMC stood for either General Motors Corporation or Gay Mans Car (friend keeps insisting thats what it stands for, but he drives Ford so what does he know anyway) and now, GMC stands for Government Motors Corporation, maybe they had to double their prices in order to pay back the bailout?

Yeah, I'm not blowing that kind of money on auto. My F150 has about 150k and runs like a top. I don't joke about the Ford vs. Chevy thing anymore, some guys take that shit way serious.

Yep. I don't put money in cars anymore either.

I have 2006 Audi A6 with 150k on the clock that runs great. Goes in snow perfectly with all wheel drive. Cost me $8k two years ago, but looks new. This is a great thing about newer cars. The good ones last a long time if cared for.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I did the whole thing. even changed over the running lights and turn signals.
also did the Euro lights on the back. My backup lights are like freaking stadium lights, I have a concern with starting the woods on fire when I back out of my driveway.

Nice. I want to do that someday to my F150. I replaced the yellowing lights with more modern after market replacements. $70 and it spiffed up the front end nicely.

its cheaper to upgrade existing than it is to buy new.
my truck new now is listing on the lot at 72k. I dont know how people do it. I think when I bought my new in 06 it was listed at 46 and I got it for 38. how they can justify doubling the price over that short a period of time is beyond me. Except when I bought mine the GMC stood for either General Motors Corporation or Gay Mans Car (friend keeps insisting thats what it stands for, but he drives Ford so what does he know anyway) and now, GMC stands for Government Motors Corporation, maybe they had to double their prices in order to pay back the bailout?

Yeah, I'm not blowing that kind of money on auto. My F150 has about 150k and runs like a top. I don't joke about the Ford vs. Chevy thing anymore, some guys take that shit way serious.

Yep. I don't put money in cars anymore either.

I have 2006 Audi A6 with 150k on the clock that runs great. Goes in snow perfectly with all wheel drive. Cost me $8k two years ago, but looks new. This is a great thing about newer cars. The good ones last a long time if cared for.

The A6 is a nice car, great ride, good power comfortable and nice looking all at the same time. I would keep that as long as I could, Im not into image with a car or truck, as long as it does what I need it to do, I keep it.

 

[gipper]

I did the whole thing. even changed over the running lights and turn signals.
also did the Euro lights on the back. My backup lights are like freaking stadium lights, I have a concern with starting the woods on fire when I back out of my driveway.

Nice. I want to do that someday to my F150. I replaced the yellowing lights with more modern after market replacements. $70 and it spiffed up the front end nicely.

its cheaper to upgrade existing than it is to buy new.
my truck new now is listing on the lot at 72k. I dont know how people do it. I think when I bought my new in 06 it was listed at 46 and I got it for 38. how they can justify doubling the price over that short a period of time is beyond me. Except when I bought mine the GMC stood for either General Motors Corporation or Gay Mans Car (friend keeps insisting thats what it stands for, but he drives Ford so what does he know anyway) and now, GMC stands for Government Motors Corporation, maybe they had to double their prices in order to pay back the bailout?

Yeah, I'm not blowing that kind of money on auto. My F150 has about 150k and runs like a top. I don't joke about the Ford vs. Chevy thing anymore, some guys take that shit way serious.

Yep. I don't put money in cars anymore either.

I have 2006 Audi A6 with 150k on the clock that runs great. Goes in snow perfectly with all wheel drive. Cost me $8k two years ago, but looks new. This is a great thing about newer cars. The good ones last a long time if cared for.

The A6 is a nice car, great ride, good power comfortable and nice looking all at the same time. I would keep that as long as I could, Im not into image with a car or truck, as long as it does what I need it to do, I keep it.

My son's first car was an old A8 when he bought it. He put 150k on it before the tranny went at 250k. Car still looked new. All aluminum body in 1999. I sold it as is on Craigslist for $900.

 

[pwjohn]

If it were possible to buy a new 1970 compact auto for its inflation adjusted 1970 price (around $14500) or a current typical compact auto your choice would be?

I agree that this doesn't really belong in politics, but the inflation adjusted price is not really accurate. First, most cars in the 1970's, including Toyota's, did not use fuel injection. This meant that the mileage and fuel economy was insufficient by modern standards. Second, the crash ratings of those 1970's cars would make them death traps by modern standards. Even the joke Smart cars have more protection for the occupants than a similar compact car from that era.

By the time you add in all those safety features, and pollution restrictions, and fuel economy requirements, you end up with a car that is much more expensive than the inflation adjusted car you started this thread with.

Volkswagen Beetles for example, inexpensive, reliable, easy to work on, easy to repair and replace. Once you add in all the mandated equipment, now is more expensive, heavier, and granted, more economical with gasoline. It is also safer, and more crashworthy.

The question is what would you want your kids in? A 1970's Toyota Corolla or a 2016 Toyota Corolla? Both have 4 cylinder engines. The modern one is heavier, goes farther on a gallon of gasoline, has reinforced doors to reduce intrusions into the passenger area, crumple zones to help absorb the impact, air bags to help cushion the G-Forces endured in an accident. Preloaded seat belts that automatically tighten when an accident happens. Produces Carbon Dioxide instead of Carbon Monoxide.

You would not only be giving up anti-lock brakes, but giving up disk brakes for drums, which are worse.

Now with all that to consider, you can still get some compact cars in the general ballpark of the price you're talking about. Kia and Hyundai and several other makers have cars in that general price range.

I understand the differences in technology. BTW, that '1970' car could likely be built in a modern factory and sold at a profit for maybe $8 - 9K. Question is should consumers be by law denied that choice?

In 1969 a new cj-5 jeep could be had for 1899.00 bucks. 36 month financing and you're out the door for a 105 bucks a month if your down payment covers the cost of tax, title & license. And surely you remember the tr-4 triumph could be had for just over 1600.00 bucks. Out the door financing less than a hundred bucks a month.

 

[Redfish]

just wondering. If they last 3 times as long but cost 3 times as much, have we really gained anything?

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

1970's decade is a decade of nightmare quality control across practically every industry.
You never want to buy a home that was built in the 70's either.

 

[rightwinger]

God, those cars in the early 70s were horrible

Todays cars are vastly superior from the ground up

Better tires, better brakes, better suspensions, more efficient engine, bodies that don't rust, better sound systems, better headlights, better wipers, better safety features...they even have cup holders instead of ash trays

 

[Maryland Patriot]

God, those cars in the early 70s were horrible

Todays cars are vastly superior from the ground up

Better tires, better brakes, better suspensions, more efficient engine, bodies that don't rust, better sound systems, better headlights, better wipers, better safety features...they even have cup holders instead of ash trays

cup holders vs ashtrays is because you can put a cup with a little water in it and use it as an ashtray, but you really cant use the ashtray to drink out of.
Its all about dual purpose and multitasking.

 

[rahtruelies]

The seed of this topic is a conversation I had with some folks at a place called Eric Peters Autos. THEY firmly believe that their personal rights are being attacked (and I tend to agree) because it is illegal to manufacture or purchase that 1970 tech auto in the USA at any price. The politics of the legality is why I figure my topic is OK in this particular forum.

I'd tend to agree with you guys. It's all about the nanny state deciding what's best for us. We've been moving from citizens to subjects for a long time.

The 70s used heavier metal and I think with a few updates could be a good car. Gas mileage could be improved too but it should be up to us, not mother government.

As far as a compact, I always liked the looks of a Falcon. Never had one so don't know if they were any good. And it's compact by 1970s standards!

I had a Falcon for several years. It was a '65 and the only emissions gear it had was a PCV valve. Poor quality/wek designs of mandatory and expensive emissions controls was the bane of 1970's cars........AND they were starting to be much more difficult to shade tree mechanic while still needing very frequent servicing. All told I am mostly pleased with modern cars, EXCEPT I could drive that Falcon on country/gravel/private lanes I would never dare take my Saturn Ion or any small/medium modern car upon. Just not enough road clearance. Can't even change oil without a lift.

One new thing of the past few years I simply distrust is the up and coming self-drive features. Most of this yearI worked a three hour drive from home and went back only on weekends. It would have been great to be able to point the car & then nod off until I got to work.............BUT the tech will not be there for a generation if ever. Drove thru a 500 year grade downpour with zero visibility. I doubt sensors would be able to 'see' any better than I or 'remember' that a car was two feet to my right and another just in front.

 

[rahtruelies]

If it were possible to buy a new 1970 compact auto for its inflation adjusted 1970 price (around $14500) or a current typical compact auto your choice would be?

I agree that this doesn't really belong in politics, but the inflation adjusted price is not really accurate. First, most cars in the 1970's, including Toyota's, did not use fuel injection. This meant that the mileage and fuel economy was insufficient by modern standards. Second, the crash ratings of those 1970's cars would make them death traps by modern standards. Even the joke Smart cars have more protection for the occupants than a similar compact car from that era.

By the time you add in all those safety features, and pollution restrictions, and fuel economy requirements, you end up with a car that is much more expensive than the inflation adjusted car you started this thread with.

Volkswagen Beetles for example, inexpensive, reliable, easy to work on, easy to repair and replace. Once you add in all the mandated equipment, now is more expensive, heavier, and granted, more economical with gasoline. It is also safer, and more crashworthy.

The question is what would you want your kids in? A 1970's Toyota Corolla or a 2016 Toyota Corolla? Both have 4 cylinder engines. The modern one is heavier, goes farther on a gallon of gasoline, has reinforced doors to reduce intrusions into the passenger area, crumple zones to help absorb the impact, air bags to help cushion the G-Forces endured in an accident. Preloaded seat belts that automatically tighten when an accident happens. Produces Carbon Dioxide instead of Carbon Monoxide.

You would not only be giving up anti-lock brakes, but giving up disk brakes for drums, which are worse.

Now with all that to consider, you can still get some compact cars in the general ballpark of the price you're talking about. Kia and Hyundai and several other makers have cars in that general price range.

I understand the differences in technology. BTW, that '1970' car could likely be built in a modern factory and sold at a profit for maybe $8 - 9K. Question is should consumers be by law denied that choice?

Consumers have a choice, they can buy a more modern vehicle or restore an old one but manufacturers can't make vehicles that are not compliant with law, specifically safety laws.
They can however make a vehicle with a 1970s look as long as it conforms to existing emissions and safety laws the problem with that is the cost will be comparable to today's prices.

As I said it illegal to build or buy that 1970's tech car. Choice has been taken away under colour of
'law' in an area of life where the State has no business.

 

[Ringel05]

If it were possible to buy a new 1970 compact auto for its inflation adjusted 1970 price (around $14500) or a current typical compact auto your choice would be?

I agree that this doesn't really belong in politics, but the inflation adjusted price is not really accurate. First, most cars in the 1970's, including Toyota's, did not use fuel injection. This meant that the mileage and fuel economy was insufficient by modern standards. Second, the crash ratings of those 1970's cars would make them death traps by modern standards. Even the joke Smart cars have more protection for the occupants than a similar compact car from that era.

By the time you add in all those safety features, and pollution restrictions, and fuel economy requirements, you end up with a car that is much more expensive than the inflation adjusted car you started this thread with.

Volkswagen Beetles for example, inexpensive, reliable, easy to work on, easy to repair and replace. Once you add in all the mandated equipment, now is more expensive, heavier, and granted, more economical with gasoline. It is also safer, and more crashworthy.

The question is what would you want your kids in? A 1970's Toyota Corolla or a 2016 Toyota Corolla? Both have 4 cylinder engines. The modern one is heavier, goes farther on a gallon of gasoline, has reinforced doors to reduce intrusions into the passenger area, crumple zones to help absorb the impact, air bags to help cushion the G-Forces endured in an accident. Preloaded seat belts that automatically tighten when an accident happens. Produces Carbon Dioxide instead of Carbon Monoxide.

You would not only be giving up anti-lock brakes, but giving up disk brakes for drums, which are worse.

Now with all that to consider, you can still get some compact cars in the general ballpark of the price you're talking about. Kia and Hyundai and several other makers have cars in that general price range.

I understand the differences in technology. BTW, that '1970' car could likely be built in a modern factory and sold at a profit for maybe $8 - 9K. Question is should consumers be by law denied that choice?

Consumers have a choice, they can buy a more modern vehicle or restore an old one but manufacturers can't make vehicles that are not compliant with law, specifically safety laws.
They can however make a vehicle with a 1970s look as long as it conforms to existing emissions and safety laws the problem with that is the cost will be comparable to today's prices.

As I said it illegal to build or buy that 1970's tech car. Choice has been taken away under colour of
'law' in an area of life where the State has no business.

You mean like the laws that give car dealers a virtual monopoly because of the influence of the powerful Dealer Lobbies?

 

[rahtruelies]

If it were possible to buy a new 1970 compact auto for its inflation adjusted 1970 price (around $14500) or a current typical compact auto your choice would be?

I agree that this doesn't really belong in politics, but the inflation adjusted price is not really accurate. First, most cars in the 1970's, including Toyota's, did not use fuel injection. This meant that the mileage and fuel economy was insufficient by modern standards. Second, the crash ratings of those 1970's cars would make them death traps by modern standards. Even the joke Smart cars have more protection for the occupants than a similar compact car from that era.

By the time you add in all those safety features, and pollution restrictions, and fuel economy requirements, you end up with a car that is much more expensive than the inflation adjusted car you started this thread with.

Volkswagen Beetles for example, inexpensive, reliable, easy to work on, easy to repair and replace. Once you add in all the mandated equipment, now is more expensive, heavier, and granted, more economical with gasoline. It is also safer, and more crashworthy.

The question is what would you want your kids in? A 1970's Toyota Corolla or a 2016 Toyota Corolla? Both have 4 cylinder engines. The modern one is heavier, goes farther on a gallon of gasoline, has reinforced doors to reduce intrusions into the passenger area, crumple zones to help absorb the impact, air bags to help cushion the G-Forces endured in an accident. Preloaded seat belts that automatically tighten when an accident happens. Produces Carbon Dioxide instead of Carbon Monoxide.

You would not only be giving up anti-lock brakes, but giving up disk brakes for drums, which are worse.

Now with all that to consider, you can still get some compact cars in the general ballpark of the price you're talking about. Kia and Hyundai and several other makers have cars in that general price range.

I understand the differences in technology. BTW, that '1970' car could likely be built in a modern factory and sold at a profit for maybe $8 - 9K. Question is should consumers be by law denied that choice?

Consumers have a choice, they can buy a more modern vehicle or restore an old one but manufacturers can't make vehicles that are not compliant with law, specifically safety laws.
They can however make a vehicle with a 1970s look as long as it conforms to existing emissions and safety laws the problem with that is the cost will be comparable to today's prices.

As I said it illegal to build or buy that 1970's tech car. Choice has been taken away under colour of
'law' in an area of life where the State has no business.

You mean like the laws that give car dealers a virtual monopoly because of the influence of the powerful Dealer Lobbies?

Not specifically, but now that you mention it yes a clear area of rent seeking activity and who will ever forget the obama regime choosing GM and Chrysler dealerships to cull during the Great Auto Bankruptcy based on which party the dealership owners made political payoffs to.

 

[Ringel05]

I agree that this doesn't really belong in politics, but the inflation adjusted price is not really accurate. First, most cars in the 1970's, including Toyota's, did not use fuel injection. This meant that the mileage and fuel economy was insufficient by modern standards. Second, the crash ratings of those 1970's cars would make them death traps by modern standards. Even the joke Smart cars have more protection for the occupants than a similar compact car from that era.

By the time you add in all those safety features, and pollution restrictions, and fuel economy requirements, you end up with a car that is much more expensive than the inflation adjusted car you started this thread with.

Volkswagen Beetles for example, inexpensive, reliable, easy to work on, easy to repair and replace. Once you add in all the mandated equipment, now is more expensive, heavier, and granted, more economical with gasoline. It is also safer, and more crashworthy.

The question is what would you want your kids in? A 1970's Toyota Corolla or a 2016 Toyota Corolla? Both have 4 cylinder engines. The modern one is heavier, goes farther on a gallon of gasoline, has reinforced doors to reduce intrusions into the passenger area, crumple zones to help absorb the impact, air bags to help cushion the G-Forces endured in an accident. Preloaded seat belts that automatically tighten when an accident happens. Produces Carbon Dioxide instead of Carbon Monoxide.

You would not only be giving up anti-lock brakes, but giving up disk brakes for drums, which are worse.

Now with all that to consider, you can still get some compact cars in the general ballpark of the price you're talking about. Kia and Hyundai and several other makers have cars in that general price range.

I understand the differences in technology. BTW, that '1970' car could likely be built in a modern factory and sold at a profit for maybe $8 - 9K. Question is should consumers be by law denied that choice?

Consumers have a choice, they can buy a more modern vehicle or restore an old one but manufacturers can't make vehicles that are not compliant with law, specifically safety laws.
They can however make a vehicle with a 1970s look as long as it conforms to existing emissions and safety laws the problem with that is the cost will be comparable to today's prices.

As I said it illegal to build or buy that 1970's tech car. Choice has been taken away under colour of
'law' in an area of life where the State has no business.

You mean like the laws that give car dealers a virtual monopoly because of the influence of the powerful Dealer Lobbies?

Not specifically, but now that you mention it yes a clear area of rent seeking activity and who will ever forget the obama regime choosing GM and Chrysler dealerships to cull during the Great Auto Bankruptcy based on which party the dealership owners made political payoffs to.

Yet it was Reagan, Bush and almost all the Republican Governors who where in the Dealer Lobbies pockets and passed all those laws giving dealerships a virtual monopoly....... Yup, both sides are crooks......