"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 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!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

...or run over it...
The truck driver would only feel like he hit a big chuckhole...

Smart cars - "Smart to park, dumb to drive."

 

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?

 

 

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!

 

The Smart Car is quite popular here in England. To my surprise thay did a crash test. They drove it 40 mph 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

 

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...

 

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.



Far as I'm concerned, a smart car is an oxymoron.

 

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..

 

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 mph felt like 100mph in a highway cruiser and I did my share of the latter.

 

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

 

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...

 

how many people do you no that can read a map and compass anymore?

 

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.

 

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...

 

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