ClassicOldsmobile.com Oldsmobile Enthusiast Community

Go Back   ClassicOldsmobile.com > General > General Discussion
Forums Gallery Encyclopedia Tech Olds Junction Register All Albums FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Used Cars

General Discussion Discuss your Oldsmobile or other car-related topics.


Welcome to Classic Oldsmobile Forum!
Welcome to Classic Oldsmobile forum,

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Classic Oldsmobile Forum today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 17th, 2009, 06:54 AM   #1 (permalink)
audiodox
Registered User
 
audiodox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 28
rant :P

"Unlike the unrefined pony cars of yesteryear, the Challenger features the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a contemporary coupe."

...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone? lol, I think not.

/rant
audiodox is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Register your account for free today or log in if already registered to remove this ad!
Old February 17th, 2009, 07:14 AM   #2 (permalink)
Lady72nRob71
Moderator
 
Lady72nRob71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,916
I see a lot of this as marketing hype.
It is getting hard to justify the 40 to 50K+ price tags on these new "refined" musclecars... I would rather have the real thing.
True, cars are more refined then yesterday, but any car is only is as safe as its driver. How much of this techno-guff do we need on cars anyway?
Sure, even the Cadillac salesmen try to convince me that my '97 STS is lacking and unsafe, just because it does not have side airbags...
I tell them about the my best safety features - good eyes and brain and no phone or alky.
I look well both ways before going through any intersection well in advance and I take my motorcycle survival skills to the cages, also.

This fuel efficiency crap is getting annoying also. I just saw consumer reports of the baby buggy cars - you know the fits, versas, and those tiny things I would not be caught dead in. They got a real life rating of 20-22mpg in the city. Heck, my Caddy gets 18-20 in the city and my old Ford gets 20 consistantly. On the highway the new little buggies do better, but I surely would not want to go far in one of those things, IF you could even get me into one at all.
My '72 Olds got 19.8mpg over a 1700 mile trip. Same as minivans and mid-size SUVs. I am happy enough...
Of course my '72 Olds convertible gave me more SMILES per gallon than any other car I have been in!!
__________________
-Rob Young

1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets/
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1978 Ford (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
1997 Cadillac STS (for sale - too many cars!)
1999 Harley Davidson Sportster - "the Freedom Machine"

Last edited by Lady72nRob71; February 17th, 2009 at 07:53 AM..
Lady72nRob71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2009, 08:36 AM   #3 (permalink)
Bluevista
Cruisin' the Vistas
 
Bluevista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,724
Why do they call them Smart cars? You would have to be an idiot to drive one of those unless everybode else is. I still want to see one on the interstate driving by a semi in a snowstorm, or even on snowy roads by itself around here . My yard tractor has bigger tires and probably has more horsepower, much safer too.
Bluevista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2009, 09:46 AM   #4 (permalink)
citcapp
Super Moderator
 
citcapp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 3,455
If you look at cost per pound the small cars cost more then their bigger brothers. And I agree on the interstate at 60+ I would hate to get passed by a dual tractor rig might blow a smart car off the road.
__________________

Pat
1957 Super 88 with a 455
1948 2dr series 76 with a 455

Last edited by citcapp; February 17th, 2009 at 04:18 PM..
citcapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2009, 10:01 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lady72nRob71
Moderator
 
Lady72nRob71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by citcapp View Post
at 60+ I would hate to get passed by a dual tractor rig might blwo a smart car off the road.
...or run over it...
The truck driver would only feel like he hit a big chuckhole...

Smart cars - "Smart to park, dumb to drive."
__________________
-Rob Young

1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets/
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1978 Ford (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
1997 Cadillac STS (for sale - too many cars!)
1999 Harley Davidson Sportster - "the Freedom Machine"
Lady72nRob71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2009, 12:48 PM   #6 (permalink)
J-(Chicago)
Seasoned beater pilot.
 
J-(Chicago)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,698
LOL.

Whenever I see one of those stupid things, I always honk and give the driver a big THUMBS DOWN.
How much does one of those horse apples cost?
__________________
I'd rather have a numbers matching poker hand.
J-(Chicago) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2009, 12:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lady72nRob71
Moderator
 
Lady72nRob71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-(Chicago) View Post
horse apples
__________________
-Rob Young

1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets/
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1978 Ford (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
1997 Cadillac STS (for sale - too many cars!)
1999 Harley Davidson Sportster - "the Freedom Machine"
Lady72nRob71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2009, 05:15 PM   #8 (permalink)
44TEETWO
Registered User
 
44TEETWO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lebanon, Oregon
Posts: 87
Better yet, Pull up next to one of those cars and watch the driver look over at you and give you a thumbs up while the entire time he or she is wishing it was theirs!
__________________
1995 Aurora
1978 Toronado
1977 Cutlass Supreme (2 of them right now)
1968 Cutlass Supreme
1967 442 restoration near complete
1965 442
1961 Dynamic 88 2dr Post
1991 Cadilliac Allante' (how'd that get in there?)
44TEETWO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 08:32 AM   #9 (permalink)
Cecil Anderson
Registered User
 
Cecil Anderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cambridge England
Posts: 97
The Smart Car is quite popular here in England. To my surprise thay did a crash test. They drove it 40 miles per hour into a solid block wall and it bounced back seceral feet and the drivers comp was really good and the crash test dummy showed only minor injuries. I don't think I would test with a large hauler but I was surprised. I think they are on the way to the USA soon. Andy
Cecil Anderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 08:40 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lady72nRob71
Moderator
 
Lady72nRob71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Anderson View Post
The Smart Car is quite popular here in England. To my surprise thay did a crash test. They drove it 40 miles per hour into a solid block wall and it bounced back seceral feet
The are popular in France, too - I saw many when i was there 4 years ago! Over there where traffic is more gridlocked and speeds are lower, and there are many less big vehicles on the road, one of those cars may be okay.
Over here, the traffic speeds are too high and too many big vehicles - pickups and suvs... Being sandwiched by two big trucks is my fear. I have seen too many accords turned into little accordians so a smart car would be compacted even easier; kinda like a bug on a windscreen...
__________________
-Rob Young

1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets/
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1978 Ford (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
1997 Cadillac STS (for sale - too many cars!)
1999 Harley Davidson Sportster - "the Freedom Machine"
Lady72nRob71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 09:26 AM   #11 (permalink)
wmachine
Trying to remember member
 
wmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiodox View Post
"Unlike the unrefined pony cars of yesteryear, the Challenger features the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a contemporary coupe."

...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone? lol, I think not.
/rant
I don't take offense to that statement because for the most part, it is certainly true. Cars today *are* more refined. Not that all of the refinements are a good thing, but our old cars are glorious enough without having to make them out to be better than they are.
Face it, my Expedition can outhandle *most* of the '60s cars and out brake virtually all of them! My Expedition is now 5 years old with over 130,000 miles. Brakes are still more the 50% left, original exhaust, and there has been nothing more than routine maintenance done, except for 2 light bulbs. No rust is visible. Compare that to a '60s car? Just trying to be realistic here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluevista View Post
Why do they call them Smart cars? You would have to be an idiot to drive one of those unless everybode else is. I still want to see one on the interstate driving by a semi in a snowstorm, or even on snowy roads by itself around here . My yard tractor has bigger tires and probably has more horsepower, much safer too.
Far as I'm concerned, a smart car is an oxymoron.
__________________
Kurt
http://wmachines.shubes.net
wmachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 10:28 AM   #12 (permalink)
scubastever
10 years in the making
 
scubastever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiodox View Post
"Unlike the unrefined pony cars of yesteryear, the Challenger features the fuel efficiency, safety, handling, technology and build quality expected in a contemporary coupe."

...unrefined? If someone really wants to talk about unrefined they might take a stab at the majority of cars released in the 90's, but to call a classic car unrefined when you're clearly trying to replicate what it once was seems to me like that car has everything you want and don't have - be it style, power, or mechanically. What would not make sense to me would be to actually choose and unrefined car and try to make it stick today as "retro-styled." 2012 Chevy Chevette anyone? lol, I think not.

/rant

interms of unrefined, the older cars were not, compared to todays products...

the steering was loose, suspension spongy with lots of body roll-

the driveline was basic, with a lot frictional loss in the transmission.

the interior was spartan with seats that were not meant for spirited cornering.

crash safety wasnt paramount,

etc etc..


they are trying to replicate the look of old cars by attracting buyers using that "oh i had that car when i was young" technique..
scubastever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 01:36 PM   #13 (permalink)
Oldsguy
Hot Rodder at heart Administrator
 
Oldsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lees Summit MO
Posts: 5,360
Unrefined doesn't always go hand in hand with technology though. One must take into consideration workmanship and what the market can handle. Comparatively speaking I would not be afraid to say that people are purchasing cars that are probably beyond their true capacity to afford, and auto manufacturers are building them because of that. In the years gone by, one was more prone to purchase what one could really and truly afford so the manufacturers responded in kind. If you take into consideration technology, cars of yesteryear were probably as refined as they could have been. Comparing one of today's cars to one of yesteryear's cars only on technology such as steering, braking and handling capabilities is like comparing apples to oranges and isn't a valid comparison really. I like the way my family sedan rides and feel more comfortable and safe in it but that does not mean I like driving it better than my Cutlass or my model 76. I think the most invigorating ride I ever had in a car was in my Uncle's 1973 Triumph spitfire, that thing was so small and so quick and light that 45 miles per hour felt like 100mph in a highway cruiser and I did my share of the latter.
__________________
Dan
'77 Cutlass Supreme
'46 2 door
"The rocket 455.....it's a sledgehammer approach to a thumbtack world" LuxBlue of HAMB.
Oldsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 01:58 PM   #14 (permalink)
Jamesbo
Super Moderator
 
Jamesbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 2,862
Not to sir the pot.

But, I think during past more prosperous times we been fooled into thinking we NEED things that we don't. We may WANT them or think they're cool. But we really don't NEED them. [wheather there're more "refined" or not.]

I also think [with these changing times] we going to forced to discern between "what we want" from "what we need."

For example. I can read a map, I don't want my car telling me where to turn.

Go into McDonalds and after the register is opened, find some change in your pocket to make it different than what the kid rang up. 99% of them have no clue how to make change. They're reading it and that's all they know. At the rate we're going, Soon no one will be capable of rolling up a window or reading a map.

End of rant
__________________


69 H/O
69 442 convertible
69 Vista Cruiser
69 442 hardtop

"Growing old is mandatory,Growing up is optional"
Jamesbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 02:14 PM   #15 (permalink)
Lady72nRob71
Moderator
 
Lady72nRob71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesbo View Post
At the rate we're going, Soon no one will be capable of rolling up a window...



I use only maps, but cannot always refold them correctly...
I used to use my pocket compass, but it only seemed to point in one direction - I think its busted... I had to get a digital compass instead...
__________________
-Rob Young

1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets/
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1978 Ford (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
1997 Cadillac STS (for sale - too many cars!)
1999 Harley Davidson Sportster - "the Freedom Machine"

Last edited by Lady72nRob71; March 4th, 2009 at 06:57 PM..
Lady72nRob71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 05:28 PM   #16 (permalink)
daves62
Registered User
 
daves62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nampa Idaho
Posts: 210
how many people do you no that can read a map and compass anymore?
__________________
Dave
daves62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 06:47 PM   #17 (permalink)
citcapp
Super Moderator
 
citcapp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 3,455
At least I can work on both of my Oldsmobiles and maintain them myself down to the last nut and bolt. Can't say that about my 2003 cadd STS or the Hya--- car. Hell my Cat diesel in my motor home is easier to work on then the Cadd.
__________________

Pat
1957 Super 88 with a 455
1948 2dr series 76 with a 455
citcapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 06:59 PM   #18 (permalink)
Lady72nRob71
Moderator
 
Lady72nRob71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by citcapp View Post
Can't say that about my 2003 cadd STS .
I have a 97 STS and feel your pain... I can barely get the battery out.
I get to try to replace coolant hoses on it this spring; I should be able to add some to the profanity vocabulary...
__________________
-Rob Young

1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets/
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1978 Ford (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
1997 Cadillac STS (for sale - too many cars!)
1999 Harley Davidson Sportster - "the Freedom Machine"
Lady72nRob71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2009, 08:31 PM   #19 (permalink)
citcapp
Super Moderator
 
citcapp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 3,455
Takes two hours just to remove all of the plastic (without breaking anything) just to get to the were you can see what your looking for.I owned a 96 before and liked it better then the 03, It was faster also
__________________

Pat
1957 Super 88 with a 455
1948 2dr series 76 with a 455
citcapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
okay so i have to rant about something.... 1BAD68"S" Other 19 March 6th, 2008 04:57 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Advertising - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Jobs
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0
All content Copyright © 2008 by Internet Brands, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63