Intragration

True, the CTS isn't really a very small car either, nor a cheap one. I guess I was talking more about the small economy type cars, which is what most people think of when they talk about saving money. And I guess my bigger point is, it takes a LOT of economy to offset the high price and depreciation of a new car, not to mention repairs once it's out of warranty. And the old car is still more comfortable and easier to work on for the duration than the new car, IMO. Overall, drive what you like. I like old cars.

Intragration

I won't argue with you, but I don't think they have very much information on serious crashes between new cars and old cars. An older car may not have airbags, it may not have all the new safety equipment, but there is a LOT of space and a LOT of metal in an older car. And since this is a thread about what's not liked about new cars, I will say that I don't fear driving around in my unsafe old car, I fear driving around in a safe but soulless pod. This is of course coming from someone who also gets enjoyment from red meat, cigars, and Scotch. Eventually, none of it will matter.

supertrucker1978

I hate that I cant get a manual transmission in a new truck!!!! That was the only way I can keep my girlfriend from driving it.

DeltaPace77

Not sure about that stratagy, as not long ago, more young girls than guys, knew how to drive manual transmission cars. Lot's of young girls were buying new stripper entry level cars, with guys buying used larger vehicles/trucks with auto tranny's. Reason most pick up's are autos, is manuals really aren't the best for pulling boats out of the water.

junqueboi

I figured it would be easier to make a list of the things I like about newer cars. I'll call "new" anything newer than 199x.

1.

oh, never mind.

Fakser

I had a bearing go out on my 2006 F-150 and to my surprise they dont sell the bearing! It's sold with the whole rotor assembly and you can't just replace one rotor so there I was shelling out 86 bucks x2 for new front rotors plus pads. Ah but I cursed those new rotors something fierce so I'm sure they know not to go bad now.

z11375ss

I hate the way my SHO Taurus runs in the mid 12s with a tune from Livernois. 4 wheel drive and brakes that stop, now! I love it. But I like the idle of my Cutlass too. Shakes the antenna, cool!

Bobbi91

What I hate in the new cars that is an absolute awful chemical smell which makes me feel bad

chrisneu68olds

What I hate:

• Opening the hood and not seeing anything but plastic covers over everything. Half the time just finding the dipstick is a chore
• Micro-dumb-doughnut spares! I LOATHE those! The last 'new' car that had a full size spare was my 89 VW Fox. Have not seen one since.
• LOUD chime/buzzer/beeping things when you have your keys in the ignition. I KNOW the keys are there, right where I left them, thank you very much!
• No proper manual gear box. Sorry Ferrari, I don't like paddle shifters.
• Yawn-ville styling. They are all starting to looks like blobs of plastic.
• All of the electronics

What I like:

• Airbags/ABS/Improved safety technology
• Fuel economy
• More hp/cube than was thought possible 20+ years ago.
• All of which = Electronics...oh well...

lweinmunson

I think my biggest complaint about newer cars is all of the gadgest they put in that just break for no good reason. Perfect example, at work we have a Lincoln Navigator that gets absolutely babied around town and kept to a strict maintenance schedule. I think it's either a 2002 or 2003 with about 40,000 miles on it. All the little doo-hickeys and gizzmos are breaking. The little motors that pull the side mirrors in went out, the motor that pulls the steps in out died, the air suspension broke. Lots of little and big things dying. The motor and transmission are fine and would probably last forever. On the other had, my Honda CRV is a 2001 and has 240,000 miles on it. So far other than regular maintenance I've had to replace the distributor, the alternator and the A/C. I think the big difference is that I bought the base model without all the gadgets. Most of the people I work with have noticed the same things. Even the Mercedes and BMW's have the electronics break. The simple car stuff will last forever now though.

Aceshigh

Buying a newer more efficient car depends more on the amount of mileage you drive then anything else.

Driving a classic vehicle that gets 11mpg city @ 20,000 miles a year with $4 gallon fuel = $7272 a year spent.
(BTW That's what my 1970 Olds Cutlass got with the SBO 350ci with the 750cfm carb and 3.73 gear)
You can easily pay for a new vehicle with that $606 a month spent in fuel plus buy your fuel.

However, if you drive say less then 10,000 miles a year, it makes more financial sense to either
A] keep your classic as a DD. Maybe update it to an overdrive transmission.
B] Buy a massively depreciated low mileage modern vehicle

However, there's no substitute for reliability with fuel injection in my opinion.
We live in a world that doesn't take well to people calling in late due to being unable to start their cars.

As for safety, it's a no brainer that modern vehicles are far more safer.
But they also get totaled out alot faster which incurs MUCH higher insurance costs as a result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

GPS, hell you can buy 5" Garmin GPS units now for under $200......no need to buy a new car for that.
Besides, they charge you $2000 for that in new vehicles anyways still for some unknown buttrapin reason.

jpc647

I have to agree. I'm actually starting to enjoy driving my everyday car more than my Cutlass. It's faster, much more comfortable, looks pretty decent, and get 30mpg. My 72 cutlass can get 18mpg on the best of days and only lays out 180hp. Yeah the cutlass has torque, but it still doesn't get out of it's own way. The new cars are very complex!! I changed the horns in my car and I had to remove most of the bumper retaining hardware to tilt it forward to get in there.

Haha. My Genesis Coupe is in the same boat, Runs 13.5 from the factory. A tune, and intake and exhuast it'll push out 330+ ponies and run 12.6-12.8 all day. My cutlass shakes the antenna too, but it's like "all show and no go". The new fusion blowing past me creates a wind foil that shake my antenna too.

That makes it easy, just get it fully loaded and have extra's you may never use?

1969w3155

Want a sunroof? easy, but you have to get the package that includes the leather seats and premium sound system$$$

rustyroger

The thing I hate most about new cars is 25% of their value is wiped out when you drive it off the dealers lot.
In the UK the licence plate stays with the car for life, it is year related and this means it very quickly becomes last years model.

Roger.

charlierogers

what i hate........... a 55,000+ pickup truck with no lighter! i think i can spare 1 of my 4 power point outlets for a darn lighter sheesh.

Aceshigh

Oh boy.....here goes the ricer ego talk LOL You're one of those guys at the tracks eh ??

Cool car for sure, but lets keep it real.....lol, it's a low 14 second car.
Which is faster then most of the original Oldsmobiles on this site......

But.....25hp isn't going to get you 1.5 seconds faster in the 1/4.

jpc647

Actually only been the the track once, I'm not one of those "ricer kids" either. First foreign car I've ever owned.

Hyundai's official time in the 1/4 for a 3.8 Track is 13.5 off the factory floor. Not sure where low 14 came from. The reflash does a lot more than bump up the power, it's a night and day difference in throttle response and in how quickly the car will actually rev up through 7,200rpms.

Pretty sure 13.5 before or after mods(for arguments sake) is faster than any stock Oldsmobile, period. A 1970 W-30 ran 14.2 from the factory. Beautiful cars though.

Not trying to bash Oldsmobile by any means, just agreeing with z11375ss's. comments. I like my cutlass a lot, it's just a shame what modern technology has taken away from these cars.

Aceshigh

All the sources say 14.2 - 14.5 ET for 2010 and 2011's......
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...38-r-spec.html

Okay, I did find a source that says the new 2013 Hyundai R-spec which is a stripped down Track model does 13.6 ET.
However, this is the direct injection 348hp model, not the 306 hp model you have.
http://www.insideline.com/hyundai/ge...full-test.html

So yes, you're in the 14's with the model you own.

I still have serious doubts about adding a tune to the 2013 to get 25hp getting you into the high 12's but that's my opinion.
The 2011 GT500 Shelby's claim 12.5 ET with supercharged V8 540hp and it only did 12.8 ET in Motortrends test
against the 2010 Camaro SS with 426hp. So to make that claim with a V6 Hyundai even tho it's lighter to me is wishful thinking.

However, I have to really give Hyundai mad props for pulling a 13.6 second ET out of that 348hp V6.
Very impressive. That's what LS1 V8 F-body's weighing almost the same were pulling just 10 years ago......crazy.

Bluevista

x2.
If you think older cars are as safe as newer ones you're kidding yourself big time. All that front end sheet metal that you think protects you just ends up in the passenger compartment with you.
Not that I don't like old cars but the body on my '92 Custom Cruiser is built way better than my '71 Vista was by a longshot. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does do crash tests with older cars and old vs. new BTW.
Edmunds has some of the new crash tests in their reports.

Check this test out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g

Some new cars may be faster off the showroom floor as old musclecars but if that's all that matters you just don't get it and there's no use trying to explain.

allyolds68

If you think its bad now wait about 10 years. They're saying the majority of cars are going to have IC motors with electric drivetrains using the technology of the EV cars but retaining the reliablity of the IC engine.

TK-65

Sums it up for me. A new Ferrari will blow away any Ferrari built in the 60s. A new Vette will smoke any Vette built before it, and do it with the A/C on. But guys still shell out top dollar for them, and in the case of vintage Ferraris, they are some of the most valuable cars on the planet.

Most people dont give a crap about a cars top speed or quarter mile time. Its about the style, the history, the feel and the time the car takes them back to or introduces them to. Buying a Hyundai will never give you the same feeling.

1970cs

X2 thats what it's all about! I like my new cars for safety,fuel economy and handling,
but climbing into the 70 and firing it up, always brings a great feelings and smile on my face.

Pat

Bayou Olds

Boy, do I agree. In fact, with a number of GM selling friends I recently replaced my PU with a new Ford F150 Super Crew with the 3.5 liter (which is the thing I hate most about cars today....Where did cubic inches go, we ARE in the USA) Ecoboost engine. Powerful, smooth engine and the truck rides great. So bye bye GM....but I will never lelt my Olds go. BTW, tows a 2 car trailer like it is nothing.

Aceshigh

How do you complain about cubic inches while choosing the V6 Ecoboost over the V8 model ?
LOL You don't see the irony of that ??

Nice truck BTW....I think Ford's F150's are the nicest pickup's out there these days
Only thing I fear is the maintenance with Ford's overengineering everything to require special tools even to do spark plugs.

Ford's have the coolest interiors.
The 2010 F150 Harley interior to me is the king of all time. Sucks that the engine got the big powerboost the following year.

1969w3155

Yep, that's what it's all about.

Miles71

Project Headlights cause temporary Night blindness.

As a pilot we are educated on the problems with having your eyes exposed to bright lights, will reduce your nighttime visibility for 20-30 minutes. As a result the FAA has designed airports and surrounding lands, to not direct bright lights into the eyes of the pilots landing / taking off.
The DOT knows nothing about Night blindness caused by bright lights.

Projector headlights are very dangerous and need to be banned from all roads in the USA.
If a car is approaching me with Project Headlights, the bright glair will significantly reduce my forward visibility.
If a Project Headlight car is behind me, I have to turn off all of my mirrors. Sometimes I will have to pull over and wait for the projector headlight car to pass.

That’s why, when it came time to buy a new car, I only would buy a car with Glass headlights.

sammy

Aceshigh

Where did you source this information from ???

Are you sure you're not confusing HID Projectors with HID's in non-approved Halogen housings that scatter light too much ??
Projectors are designed to shoot LESS light out at people and more at the roads. They have blockers in them.

http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/6366644-post22.html

This is HID glare from people putting them in Halogen housings, which are incorrect.


These are HID Projectors, from the factory. Notice the SHARP cut off line without light scatter to blind oncoming drivers.
All the light hits the road, and not people's rear view mirrors.

Miles71

Hi Aceshigh: I got most of my observations from daily driving. I have no idea what others are using for bulbs in their cars. Some Projectors are worse than others. Since I can't "see" the car approaching me, I have no idea which cars are worse than others.

Part of the problem is the DOT/NHTSA has done a very poor job at testing and regulating headlights on American cars.
No two car manufactures produce "projector" systems the same way. Some project systems may be better than others.
Recently my good neighbor was following my car one night. He drove a BMW with stock $200 bulbs. The flashing spot lights lighting up the interior of my car from behind made it impossible for me to see with him behind me. I was forced to pull over. That is one of the extreme examples. Not all cars are as bad as his BMW.

Excessive head light glair was practically unheard of 20 years ago. Now with the invention of Project headlights and with most cars being sold with project headlights, the number of cars generating excessive glair is escalating. Just surf the web and see all of the complaints.

In the Image example by Asceshigh (s4hid13.jpg), it shows a projector light with a "sharp" cut-off-line. That is a perfect example of one of the problems with Project headlights, is the intensity of the Cut-off-line. Since all American road have bumps, when a car with those headlights hits a bump in the road, it's just like someone one setting off a "flash" camera in your face, Instant reduction in nighttime visibility for the approaching driver.
A more gradual transition is needed to allow your eyes a little more time to react.
In Europe cars with high-power lights also need an Automatic Leveling system, which is not found on cars sold in America.

Here is one recent article
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-0...andards-angles

brown7373

I just bought 3 refills from NAPA this morning for $14.86. They have stainless steel between the rubber, not the cheap plastic. 60-1612 for 16 inch and 60-1512 for 15 inch. They have lots of different sizes.

jpc647

Even if it is 14.2 off the factory floor, obviously I'm modded. Not to say that an intake and an exhaust are good for much more than 7wph, but there is quite a bit of a difference in the tune. Without dyno time, I don't know what my custom tune really netted me power-wise. I was guessing at 330. Very well could be more. What I can tell you is with a raised rev limited and a TCS system that now turns off completely, unlike the OEM configuration (which on the subject is quite restrictive even in the off position, and still has preset limits; there are many complaints about it and even a TSB), and a car that'll rev up through the rpms much faster than OEM, it's definitely a difference. When I get to the track this year, I'll let you know. I'm not a import lover by any means, but for sub $30,000 with everything included, it's one of the best deals going.

But it's not all about the straight line, an unprepared GC runs the Nurburgring 10 seconds slower than a fully sponsored Camaro SS. 10 seconds on a 8 minute track isn't that much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IdpsR-GjLg

(There was 15 seconds delay from yellow flags and traffic). Being an unprepared car, not backed by a manufacturer at all, has a big effect too. It'd completely expect it to break into the high 8:10's or low 8:20's on a "full setup run". That puts it right there with the Camaro SS, the BMW 335i, even the Cayman S. For 30k, and a decent driver, this car is no joke.

The problem with this video(which pops up every few months) is if you pause it during the impact, you an clearly see the rust in the air from that impala. There is no doubt in my mind that the 59 impala has clear frame and structural rot, and that was capitalized on for this test.


I guess it's different for everyone. I wasn't alive in 1972, I will never remember these cars going down the road when they were new. I'll never remember that Oldsmobile that a buddy had that stock would blow everything under the sun out of the water(which I call selective memory). I know a lot of members here have similar stories, I don't simple as that. Maybe I don't get that "feeling" you guys do. But taking an onramp to I-90 or 495 at 95mph without body roll, that's a feeling I got used to very quickly.

I actually landed a job due to my Hyundai. I was returning a few things at a store when a gentleman approached me about the car, asking what it is, etc. After talking for quite a while he told me about a position where he worked. Things just sort of fell into place. Most people don't give a rats a** about a regular Cutlass, regardless of age. And making it a clone, is just making it something it really isn't.

Aceshigh

I can definitely say either way, I agree straight line performance isn't the end all to making a great car.
I think that GenCoupe is proof Hyundai's have come a loooooong way.

That, the Equus, the Genesis sedan, etc....unreal how hard Hyundai is hitting the various car categories all at once.

Outside of speculation , there is this one fact that alot of people didn't know.

"Beginning in 1958 most full-sized GM cars featured the X-frame design whereas everyone else used a ladder frame. The ladder frame supported the car around its entire perimeter, significantly increasing the strength of the body assembly. Most companies used a separate body-on-frame design as opposed to the unit-body design used today. "

Continue reading on Examiner.com IIHS crash tests a 1959 Chevy, was it a set up?: - Washington DC Auto Industry | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/auto-industr...#ixzz1ofjfX5P1

Allan R

In general I agree 150%. But, there is one thing I really hate about my 07 Sonata Limited. It has the 3.3L and to change the back spark plugs means you have to take the upper intake crossover off and remove the fuel rails. By the time you've got it all said and done count on about 2 1/2 + hours. for 6 plugs. I just refuse to take it to Hyundai to do this for only 390.00 when I can do it myself. Good thing they only need changing every 90k miles. Oh, and they HAVE to be iridium.

Bayou Olds

LOL I meant 3.5 liter as opposed to 213 ci or 5 liter instead of 302. I can take the lack of displacement if I still have the low end torque and hp......which the Ecoboost does. But I miss the V8 rumble.

MDchanic

I'm sorry, but how do you know, from watching a low-res video, that this was rust?
Can you see it? Sample it? Taste it?
This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion, with absolutely no foundation.

How many old cars have you taken apart?
Have you ever encountered any road dust inside the frame rails?
Old cars are FULL of dust and grime, and if you hit them with 2 tons of metal at 60mph, it will come out.

Since, as you say, I have to assume that you also didn't see these cars wrecked on the sides of the roads, and didn't crawl around junkyards back when they were full of cars like this. If you had, you'd know that the damage you see in that video, with the deformation of the passenger compartment and the twisting of the body and frame, were common at the time.

Please don't insult our intelligence and our memories when many of us can tell you form our own personal experience that that was a very accurate video.

- Eric

Allan R

X3. There's no doubt that tech, engineering and safety standards have advanced quantum leaps since 59. Even though I'd rather be in a crash with my 07 Sonata, I would never be that afraid of driving my 72 just because of that video. Don't forget also, that video was staged for a specific type of crash. The new cars will fare better in almost every type of impact. You can't let fear dictate your enthusiasm for vintage cars. My Dad had a 59 Chev wagon in that exact same color that we used to scramble over the seats and ride 'unbelted' in the back cargo area. What made a big difference back then was Dad was a great driver.

Like Eric and a few others I have spent a LOT of time scrambling through boneyards looking for parts. What he says about the damage factor is 100% spot on. Several times, I also found the blood inside the car showing the grisly indicator or what probably was a fatality. Oh, and those wrecks? There was very little to nothing salvageable on them.

66 Olznut

I'm torn between new and old. While I agree about the feeling about driving an old car, etc, I want to have the reliability of a new one but when I got my truck new in 2006, I didn't then care for and even more so now the interior of the truck. Cheap is an understatement. As for that reliability, front brakes, tires and a small heater hose are the only things that I had to replace in 6 years and 87k miles. I can't complain about how I can go from 325hp/610tq factory to a chassis dyno proven 456hp/910tq in just 5 minutes without even opening the hood. My truck is very easy to work on, the beauty of a simple pre emission straight 6 and having a factory service manual on disc. I am building my '66 to be a nice freeway flyer so we'll see how my recipe turns out on that one. But for now, I get my old car fix by taking my buddys '65 to Olds shows. We went to the Az Olds Club show last month, we towed the '65. 420 miles in the 65 woulda been a nightmare with gas prices and a breakdown would ruin the trip. My truck averaged 17.3 mpg towing the car which I thought was a fluke until it just about matched the same figure coming home, 17.2. 422302_2436297766986_1838000888_1525232_1519475273_n.jpg

Allan R

Yeah, now the new trucks are catering more to the interior design and mileage. Lots of the 90's and 2000's look so cheap inside because of extensive use of hard plastic. The mileage you got for towing that 65 is pretty impressive though; and I seriously doubt you were driving 55mph. Sounds like your rear gears are around 3:73's?

MDchanic

My "new" 280,000 mile 1990 6.2 diesel 3/4 ton pickup gets 20MPG all day bare, 13MPG towing 7,500 lbs.

I gotta say that these new trucks with the fast turbodiesels, smooth suspensions, and top-notch interiors kind of tee me off - it just doesn't seem right that they're so nice.

It's giving me a complex.

- Eric

66 Olznut

I was keeping around 65 actually. I know Az has a 75 mph speed limit but no way I was gonna do it with the cargo I had. I just stuck to the right lane. My truck has the 4.10 gears and as long as I keep it under 2000 rpm, the mpg will stay up. This rhing just eats up hills like no tomorrow. I averaged 15.6 mpg towing the same car to Reno up hwy 395 which climbs to 9000' or so and the truck stayed in overdrive the whole time, no downshifting at all. Talk about torque, I was passing cars going up the same hill.