mfgusa

Designed life. There's no money in something that lasts forever. There's also no money in something that you can consistantly fix or modify in your own garage with relatively rudimentary tools.


Older performance cars had a performance reputation that has never faded and the new(er) car owners probably dont want to "risk" loosing to an apparently inferior car at a stoplight, expecially after dropping 40k worth of payments on it. If we get beat, it's not that big of a deal.


So anyways, we all probably have a stable of late model daily drivers. But if I feel like stepping out, it'll be in my '70. Joe public likes that.

brown7373

The problem with "new" things now days is the ability to keep them operating long term. Old machines, cars, refrigerators, stereos or what ever were built with the idea that they could be repaired. Most of todays products are disposable. How many of the old cars we drive and restore, worked their way from new car, to used car to beater that some high school kid (maybe you and I) went to the junk yard and got repair parts cheap. When the new car computer goes out, that is not so easy a repair. I am sure there are some on this site that can make those repairs, but not the average kid keeping his car on the road with very few dollars and very little expertise. I can remember buying junk yard carbs for $25 or less. Can todays kid spend $1000 or $1500 for computer on a car that is not worth half that? So many parts on the cars today are plastic. Not just interior and trim, but switches, relays and things in the engine compartment that dry out and fall apart. I've been reading how the auto manufacturers have been trying to prevent independant auto repair shops from being able to purchase the computer software to work on new cars, whether by refusing to sell it, or pricing it out of reach of many shops. How will a young guy today keep the beater on the road so some restorer will be able to come along in 25 or 30 years to restore it?

The one major + of our old cars, is I can fix almost anything on the car. I was never trained, but I have watched, read and learned. I don't see todays cars as being able to be repaired by the average guy like the old cars were.

TheBigBlueBoat

Coming from someone who has a 350 Rocket and a 00 GT with a 03 Cobra motor-

That little 281 with 11psi will blow my Cutlass away. It even puts the 350's torque to shame. It hits like a sledgehammer to the chest, and will spin all the way through 4th on its current tires. That setup is good for high 10's.

Not to mention the Cobra IRS in it is much more predictable than the old SRA in the Cutlass.

The Cobra will beat the pants off a 350 Cutlass, no questions about it.

Now comparing to a 455, that's a whole different ballgame. A 442 will be up in the same league, although it's going to take an engine-up rebuild and it already has almost twice as many cubes to begin with. And that's to run with a Cobra engine that's running a measly 8.5:1 CR on a nearly stock longblock.

And though modern amentities in newer cars or nice, my Cutlass still comes up the winner in what is more pleasurable to drive. It may not have a radio, or nice leather/suede bucket seats, but it's 10x more reliable, actually has a heater, doesn't overheat on me... But that's more because my stang happens to be a jerry-rigged mess I made the mistake of buying. Once I get it running right I'm sure it will be a blast.

mfgusa

I agree. If it takes 2 grand to open the pathway to understanding because your crank position sensor is faulty who is going to do it? If you can afford it, then just take it into the shop ar buy a new car.


I'm 54 and work in technology. Finding Journeymen electricians is next to impossible nowdays but button pushers are a dime a dozen. Who will carry the torch once we retire? My son is an Auto-mechanics teacher at a local high school with a degree in technology. The current generation of kids going through his class don't have the ability or desire to do much more than oil and tire changes and need extensive training in electrical to even approach the troubleshooting processes.


Boy did I ever steal this thread. Sorry

gearheads78

Could not have said it better.

MDchanic

Tell that to my Lawn Boy.

Bought new in 1972 by my grandfather.
I think the points and condenser have been changed twice, the coil once.
Stored outdoors most of its life.
Used every summer since 1972.
Starts on the first pull.

Good luck doing that with our OHV Honda mower.

- Eric

captjim

Guys, you are not being fair. There will always be exceptions. How many 1972 Lawn Boys are still going today? Just because someone has a 1969 Evinrude does not mean that ourboard motors were better in 1969. Is it fair for a guy with a model "A" to say his car is better than your 442? No.
Today's cars are faster, run better, cleaner, last longer, break down less even though get get driven a LOT more, handle better, and are a lot safer. Our hobby cars are fun to drive, I agree completely, but there is some revisionist history going on. How many of you have ever driven a car with front drum brakes? Most older A Body cars had them.

I have been a mechanic sincwe the mid 70s and the arguments about "new" cars being hard to work on is as old as cars themselves. In the mid 70s electronic ignition came out.
"OMG, we'll never be able to work on these", we did
In the early 80s it was computer controls,
"OMG, we'll never be able to work on these", we did
In the early 90s it was EFI,
"OMG, we'll never be able to work on these", we did
In ten years the new technology will be old and guys will work on them.
Also, as to the "disposable society" that has a lot to do with labor rates and how relatively inexpensive things are to manufacture. Using the lawnmower example, a shop charges $40/hour to work on a $175 mower, do the math, 3 hours in and you can buy a new one. That does not reflect the quality of the mower but more the cost of running a repair shop.

MDchanic

Today's lawnmowers, on the other hand, cut grass to just about the same height as the old ones did.

And nobody makes a magnesium-bodied, aluminum-engined lawnmower these days that weighs about 30 pounds.

- Eric

Bamfer

Yikes, I didn't mean to start this debate all over, Just saw some of the retro cars in the car mags I read and thought a 65 442 would be Killer! And cost 40K LOL Personally I don't have a fast NEW car. I drive a Jeep, my wife drives a little rice burner for the gas mileage. I have 3 kids to get through school so I won't be buying a new Camaro anytime soon even though I like them.
However when I drove my new ( old ) 64 Cutlass home Wed their were a lot of folks in those NEW cars looking at mine. Even with the squeak coming from the lower A arm bushing.

Speed is fun, style is timeless. Drive what you brung It's all good !!

ah64pilot

Jim I don't agree with your "last longer" comment...you're telling a whole forum of guys that own 40+ year old cars that new cars last longer? lol!

Anyway, auto manufacturers have mastered one thing in particular...it's called planned obsolescence. They aren't as good as computer and software manufacturers have gotten, but that is because there are safety standards that prevent them from making plastic seat belt buckles.

One thing our older cars suck at is obsolescence, and we are proving that every day we keep them running.

firefrost gold

bccan

I was just reading car mag @ barbershop. Article on BMW M6 vs ZL1, I don't know if this adds anything to thread but just to throw some #'s related to discussion.

BMW.......................ZL1
$125,600................ $62,250

500/556 7auto..........560/580 6man

19 mpg avg..............16 mpg avg

12.3 @ 118...............12.7 @ 113

I forgot to note the weight but I think Camaro (cnvtbl) was just a tad under 4600# & BMW was around 4300 give or take a few due to my very limited memory storage.

It bears out a lot of what has been said here - stock, new performance cars are WAAAY more powerful than the old ones but carry a hefty weight penalty. Still they are way faster than a W, LS, Hemi, etc of old in showroom condition. With mods our old cars can keep their chins up after a qtr mile run & maybe even show them up sometimes. The brakes, chassis, suspensions, creature comforts cannot even be compared. MPG is arguably not all that different if you are a good enough tuner w/ SOME of our old stuff but is also very dependant on the driveline combo which was highly variable vs 1 or 2 flavor plug & play of the modern cars.

I think a decently tuned "stock" L88, ZL1, LS6, Hemi, etc with good tires could have held there own in the 1/4 sandbox w/ these guys but how common were any of these (other than LS6)? These were "mannerless" thugs w/ a thirst for 100 octane gas. No 350 of the era would have stood a chance against any of these new cars, what is the fastest S/xx W31 from competition history that was set up to do only one thing?

The BMW can probably put those 1/4 mile numbers down on the street w/ good consistency w/ 7 spd auto & launch control. The ZL1 is gonna suffer w/ mere mortal drivers rowing a stick & having to launch it though it does have launch control, I don't know how it works.

captjim

Finally!! Some objectivity. Listen, I love old hot-rods, but I am also realistic, take the medium to high end performance cars of the muscle care era and compare to today. The new cars are better in every way, how could they NOT be?? And when you adjust for inflation, it is pretty close.

captjim

Not fair. How many vehicles did GM manufacvture between 1968 and 1972? How many are still on the road? How many of those have been at least patially restored? A LOT of that is due to aftermarket support. Also, what is the average mileage on these older cars? I bet you 7 year old truck has more miles on it.

Bamfer

You could build one MEAN Olds for 62K ! And add whatever comforts you wanted.
Just saying.

SBORule

There's a guy here in Orlando that has a stock Hemi 2010-11 ? Challenger that runs 13.10-13.20's on Drag Radials.

captjim

You guys keep getting hung up on the cost, it is comparable when adjusted for inflation. And in 5 years it will still have a majority of it's cost. Also, while EPA and insurance was a factor, the reality is sales of high end muscle cars were not that good and that is part of the reason they went away. They were very expensive for the time.

Intragration

New car prices are not comparable to old cars when adjusted for inflation. A W-30 could be had in 1970 for about $3,900. This equates to about $23k today. A Hemi 'Cuda in 1970 started at about $3,800. This equates to $22k today. Both of these would be considered high-end muscle cars, and both were great. In contrast, a brand new Camaro SS starts at $33k. That is equivalent to about $5,600 in 1970, 50% higher. This is using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.

The reason the muscle cars went away was because of government and insurance meddling, NOT because they weren't good. Pretty much every manufacturer had even more serious engines in the works when they were killed because of regulatory interference. Cadillac had a V12. Oldsmobile had the W-43. Chrysler had bigger and more economical Hemis.

If you don't like old cars, it's ok to just come out and say it. I don't like new cars. I'm the guy who's driving around in the old junk and having FUN. I don't care how fast new cars are, or how big their infotainment screens get, or how robust their stability control systems get, or how many mechanical systems can be converted to electronic operation through a computer. New cars just don't do it for me. JMO.

coppercutlass

Look this is what my theory is . If I want to go fast and feel like I'm in a lazy boy I would buy something to fit the bill. But running these old cars with drum brakes all the way around and that sound that just can't be beat and for me it's a constant white knuckle ride. I use my car for what I intended it to be. Used and abused. I surely would not want to do that to a brand new car. But to each their own. We all seem to forget these old machines are old but the aftermarket has also kept up with technology. Carb's, cam's, heads, efi for old cars, has all progressed.

ah64pilot

I started a post just like this using the BLS inflation calculator and then just said to hell with it. But I agree, cars have doubled in price since 1970 even with inflation taken into account.

Intragration

I agree, it's pretty pointless doing the inflation comparison, because the fact is we can't go back and buy old cars in 1970, and if you want a new car, you pay what you pay. But for me, I want a car that has everything I need and nothing I don't for the lowest price and with the fewest points of potential failure. So I bought a $1,200 shell, and a $1,500 engine and threw it together. It's as fast or faster than 99% of the cars on the road, it goes, stops, turns, and it's reliable. If something breaks, I go buy a part and replace it. For my purposes, no new car could possibly be better.

Talking about points of failure, a friend of my dad spilled approximately one sip of hot coffee on his center console, where the controller for everything sits. It screwed it up and he needed a new electronic thing. It cost him $1,800, and of course wasn't under warranty because it was his fault. The guy's son is a mechanic at the dealership, he said this is a fairly common problem. There's not a spot on my car where you could pour a pot of coffee and have any serious ill effect, except for maybe directly down the carburetor. This may be silly, but seriously, do cars need to be so complicated that coffee spilling where coffee might reasonably be causes thousands of dollars worth of damage? This is NOT progress, IMO.

captjim

I don't hate old cars, they are a lot of fun. But they aren't better. And I agree there are too many bells and whistles on them. Is it really that hard to turn on the wipers when it rains?? But, how many times did you have to file points on the side of the road? Or mess with the choke on a cold day? And on an on. As far as inflation, there are a lot of ways to play with stats. But, compare average yearly salary vs the car cost on both and see how it plays out. Gas was 19 cents a gallon, it is now $3.75.

captjim

I certainly respect your right to your opinion, but that does not address the facts. You may prefer older cars, but that does not make them better or faster. IMO bccan stated it well and I will leave it at that.

captjim

So prices are 6 times higher today that 1970? Don't buy it. Again, you can play with stats all you want.

ah64pilot

What? You're kidding right? I said the price of a car has doubled even with inflation taken into account. If you leave inflation out of it then sure, you can say the price of a car is 6 times higher. Either way, what's not to buy?

The proof is in the numbers:

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

ah64pilot

You can even look at the average income for those years. The price of a "muscle car" in 1970 was 63% of the average yearly income. Compare that to today's price of a "muscle car" at 95% of the average yearly income...there is really no argument here.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

ctsplicer

Captjim,where do you live that gas is only$3.75.It's $4.09 here.I want to live near you.

captjim

Florida, I think the taxes are less. It is actually down to $3.59

Intragration

The actual fact is, things that are "better" about new cars in the opinion of some, may in fact be "worse" in the opinion of others. There's almost nothing that can be presented as a fact unless we compare specific apples-to-apples data. (the closest thing to fact thus far was the comparison of 1970 and 2013 cars adjusted for inflation that showed that a 2013 model year car is at least 50% more expensive in 2013 dollars than comparable 1970 cars in 2013 dollars. Feel free to do the research and math yourself, I used the online Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, The Standard Catalog of American Cars published by Krause in 1987 for the 1970 car prices, and Kelly Blue Book online for the 2013 new car price) Everything else is pretty much all just opinion...and I also respect your right to your opinion.

Taking a step back, I think we're all initially on here because we like or have some interest in old Oldsmobiles, not because we like new cars. Some may like new cars, and some may not, and it's cool to be able to discuss it, but I don't know if we're ever going to be able to come to a broad consensus on it, nor do I think we really need to. At the end of the day, we have a cool place to come and talk about Oldsmobiles, that's a great thing.

Bamfer

I just got my 64 Cutlass last week after 20 plus years of not having an older car. So I may not have the same perspective as you guys. I like vintage cars, almost all vintage cars. I don't really notice the new muscle cars much because I have never wanted to own one. As far as who has a faster car goes, I have learned that there is always someone faster. My buddy Rich has a SS Trail Blazer with a BBC that cracks out 1,200 HP and has NOS if he needs it
My enjoyment doesn't come from beating people on the street or strip with my 64. ( Although that does get you into the bonus round )
I just love driving that car. My youngest daughter ( 11 ) had a friend ride with us around the neighborhood and she was saying " this car is so awesome ", " I wish my dad had one these " My kid was smiling from ear to ear. Nuff said.

TenMidgets

Good post.

I have an '05 Hemi in a 300C and have had a couple of 350 Rockets and they're both different in their own ways. Hard to compare them, but easy to enjoy them!

captjim

You guys mentioned a W-30 "starting at" $3800. I kinda thoght that sounded low. Here is a post on another forum by SVNT442, a respected guy on all Olds forums,
"That just seems low. I have the window sticker from my 1970 Cutlass S and it most definatly was not "fully loaded". The sticker says $3,960 with the options on it. That's a 350 2bbl, TH350 trans, 2.56 rear end with posi, power trunk release, interior lighting, trunk light, A/C and "sport steering wheel". That's not the 4 spoke that everone wants though. It was even a drum brake car and AM radio.

And if you look when you add options it does nothing the the base original MSRP on that site. Options play a HUGE part in the cost of the car."

Here is the thread,
http://oldsmobileforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4214
So he has a sticker for a bare-bones 350 2 bbl car in 1970 for $4,000. AM radio and drum brakes. You are telling me a BBO 442 isn't well over $5,000? That adds maybe 50% to the realistic price of a "comparable" car. By that I mean fully loaded, top-of-the-line with max power package. Again, you can play with stats and make the numbers do what you want.

Also, By "Better" I mean, well, better. That does NOT mean more fun to drive. But I think if you guys realistically imagine driving your BBO 70 Cutlass everyday, rain, snow, long trips, etc, you really can't compare them to today's technology. Just my humble opinion.

ctsplicer

captjim,as of this morning,Citgo(the cheapest gas in town)is at $4.299.I wonder if I can turn my cars into pedal cars like I had when I was little.

captjim

My first job was in 1978 working at a Shell station, regular was .29 a gallon.

Bamfer

Sorry guy's It's not an Olds but I thought you might enjoy this. My buddy's first motor 700 HP TBSS You never know, Fast comes in different forms.

Intragration

I said about $3,900 to start for the W-30. It may have sounded low, but it's not. I'm not "playing around" with the numbers, it's all very cut and dried. This is from the Krause Standard Catalog of American Cars, published 1987.

1970 Cutlass 442 body style 4487 2-dr Holiday Coupe - $3,376
V-8 455 cubic inch 370 horsepower W-30 engine (OAI) - $597
Total price: $3,973

So a basic 442 with a 455 was $3,376, and if you wanted just a Cutlass with a 320 horsepower 455, you could get that for $2,907 plus $87 for the motor, or $2,994. For $5,000 you could get a 455 Cutlass AND have enough left over to walk into an AMC dealer and buy a brand new Hornet winter beater for $1,994. Certainly adding options could jack the price way up, as it does today. But you could also go in and buy a stripper, something which they have cleverly eliminated.

I wasn't able to do a complete price list for the options on SVNT442s options (he apparently has the option sheet, so this would be the most direct route) but the base price on his car with no other options is listed at $3,151, AC at $431, and an AM radio at $69 according to the Krause book.

gearheads78

I love new cars!!! The more gagets and gismos the better. You see I work for a repair shop. When that $1000.00 EBCM goes out or that $800.00 SDM or the $2000.00 air ride system fails I make a paycheck to raise a family and hope to have a little left over for old cars.

gearheads78

Every time I pull the 69 Camaro out the kids in the neighborhood want to ride. Its so funny listening to my 6yo boss the kids around about don't touch the paint, only open the door like this, don't slam the door ect.

Intragration

Ha ha this is great, respect for cars starts early. I remember the exact same thing when I was a kid. I'd yell at the other kids if they didn't keep their feet on the floor mats, or if they knelt on the seats, or slammed the doors too hard. My dad started me early too. As for repairs, I went through a number of emissions related items on the Blazer before I discovered that a simple tune could remove all of the emissions checks from the PCM. Unfortunately, this makes it more like an old car, and it takes money out of the mouths of the technicians' families... But it sure smells good now.

MDchanic

Look, let's just cut to the chase. Go to the 1970 Oldsmobile SPECS Booklet and you can add up the MSRP for any model combination you want to, whether you're trying to make that price be higher or lower.
You'be he hard pressed to get to $5,000, though - the most expensive Cutlass model listed is the 3-seat Vista Cruiser for $3,778, and the most expensive Cutlass 2-door is the 4-4-2 Convertible for $3,567.
W-31 for the base F-85 including suspension upgrades adds no more than $591 to the $2,787 F-85 (=$3,378).
W-30 package for the top-of the line 4-4-2 (at $3,312 to $3,567, depending on body type) adds $370 (=$3,682 to $3,937).

I will leave it to others to list every possible option combination in support of their arguments.

I will note, though, that the median household income in 1970 was $9,870, for men working year-round, full time, it was $9,180 (with about ⅓ of wives working at all - whether full or part-time), while the median income in 2011 was $45,230, with 35% of families where someone is employed having just one wage earner, 52% having two (wife works), and 13% having three or more (presumably parents and child or husband, wife, and adult relative all working).
So, about $9,000 a year, with ⅔ of that being earned by Dad alone vs about $45,000, with ⅔ of that being earned by multiple family members together.
That $4,000 for a well-equipped hi-po Olds was about 44% of a year's pay in 1970, with enough to spare in ⅔ of households for Mom to bake cookies, make curtains, and send the kids off to school every day,
which would translate out to about $20,000 as 44% of today's median, with both parents scrambling to work and ⅔ of the kids coming home to a dark house and a note after school every day.

- Eric