Older cars/newer cars

So far we’ve established that there’s advantages to either.

I have a lot of experience w older cars back to my first. A 1935 Chevrolet w radio and heater. Very deluxe. Paid $4.50 for it and drove it home w/o a license. Had “knee action” front suspension that was like a wasted shock absorber. Rode quite smooth though.

Unfortunately crisp handling is far more popular than a smooth ride now. Priorities misplaced IMO. Not say’in we should go back to 1936 cars but a reasonable compromise would be really nice. I remember a somewhat modern car that had a VERY nice ride. Late 60’s 220 MB 6 cyl. Not usually fond of the brand but that car rode beautifully. Another remarkable riding car was a Renault 5 (late 70’s) known most often as the “LeCar”. It had a magic ride too but at the expense of too much body roll. It would traverse really big potholes bigger than the Renault’s wheels with amazing grace.

So good riding cars can be built but all cars (that I know about) have a “performance” tuned suspension. Including my present Avalon. That’s stupid as probably over 95% of car buyers would much rather have a smooth ride.
The auto testers are car enthusiasts and only say nice things about cars tuned for performance. And the manufacturers seem to follow.

I would agree on the Renault. My parents had one back in the 70’s back in Scotland, can’t remember the model name, was a four door fastback, it seemed to float over the road. Once drove it at 140 mph down a country road and scared the poop outta my pants with its lack of responsiveness. Still, I loved driving it around town. My car at the time was a mini with a busted muffler so it sounded like a farm tractor. Wasn’t worth fixing. I had paid £70 for the car at the time. I think a new muffler was close to the same price.

It was years before I drove a car over 140mph again. First time was in a friends restored E-Type convertible and then more recently and frequently in my BMW Z4.
Don’t recall ever driving that fast in an American built car. Maybe just didn’t get the opportunity.

Gill,
You mean 140 km?
Your BM is a six ... or a four? The Z3 and Z4 scored real high for durability unlike all other BMW’s. I’d probably like it. I have a friend that’s gaga over BMW’s and he may get one.
Yup .. The only thing I had against the Renault was the body lean and it was just too small. Mine was red w tan interior and a steel top.

Nomad Willy said:

So far we’ve established that there’s advantages to either.

I have a lot of experience w older cars back to my first. A 1935 Chevrolet w radio and heater. Very deluxe. Paid $4.50 for it and drove it home w/o a license. Had “knee action” front suspension that was like a wasted shock absorber. Rode quite smooth though.

Unfortunately crisp handling is far more popular than a smooth ride now. Priorities misplaced IMO. Not say’in we should go back to 1936 cars but a reasonable compromise would be really nice. I remember a somewhat modern car that had a VERY nice ride. Late 60’s 220 MB 6 cyl. Not usually fond of the brand but that car rode beautifully. Another remarkable riding car was a Renault 5 (late 70’s) known most often as the “LeCar”. It had a magic ride too but at the expense of too much body roll. It would traverse really big potholes bigger than the Renault’s wheels with amazing grace.

So good riding cars can be built but all cars (that I know about) have a “performance” tuned suspension. Including my present Avalon. That’s stupid as probably over 95% of car buyers would much rather have a smooth ride.
The auto testers are car enthusiasts and only say nice things about cars tuned for performance. And the manufacturers seem to follow.

Click to expand...

MB 220 inline 6 with 4 on floor was my first car. 13” wheels. Discs in front. Inde rear.

Early XJ 6 had a great ride with those inboard brakes!

I enjoy driving and rebuilding old cars, they have character and are often a challenge.
Thank goodness they don't make them like they used to!
Our Honda Accord V6 is a little bland but does everything expected of it and more, with minimal service requirements and a comfortable ride.
Our present stable includes 1913 IHC Highwheeler, 1928 Model A Ford, 1928 Austin 7 Chummy, 1942 Harley WLA outfit, Citroen 2CV, Fiat 124 Spider and we drive them all regularly. The 2CV and the Spider are the most fun.
Of past cars, our Citroen DS 23 was by far the most luxurious ride and the best fast point to point tourer.

Nomad Willy said:

Gill,
You mean 140 km?
Your BM is a six ... or a four? The Z3 and Z4 scored real high for durability unlike all other BMW’s. I’d probably like it. I have a friend that’s gaga over BMW’s and he may get one.
Yup .. The only thing I had against the Renault was the body lean and it was just too small. Mine was red w tan interior and a steel top.

Click to expand...

No sir, it was mph. Phew! Was the bigger body style. Maybe a 7? Now I’m going to have to look it up. Over 40 years ago.......

The BMW was a 2005 Z4 with a six cylinder and paddle shifters. My friend had a Porsche Boxster that I could easily outrun. He would get peeved when I asked him how he was doing with his lady car. I had the Beemer less than a year. After Hurricane Katrina the city roads were not suitable for such a low slung car with less than 4” ground clearance. Bought a Chevy Avalanche. From the sublime to the ridiculous. Lmao..

You said the "R" word.

I had a brand new Turbo Fuego for 9 stressful months in the early '80s. That car broke down every 50 feet. Then it had to be flat bedded back to the dealer for a massage. No new parts because they could never find what was wrong with it. After 9 months of being stranded we traded it in and got a new Z28 Camaro. Didn't ride anywhere near as smooth but it never broke down.

Boy do you take a beating when you trade in a 9 month old French turbocharged fuel injected sports car to a Chevy dealer. Didn't care anymore. Stayed with American cars until I started buying Acuras and Hondas in the late '90s.

I still keep a C5 Corvette for fun. It doesn't ride too well either but that's not it's point.

alormaria said:

You said the "R" word.

I had a brand new Turbo Fuego for 9 stressful months in the early '80s. That car broke down every 50 feet. Then it had to be flat bedded back to the dealer for a massage. No new parts because they could never find what was wrong with it.

Click to expand...

But they were really sexy looking weren't they. That amazing curved glass in the hatch and the body shape was way ahead of its time. I think they were one of the first cars out (affordable) which had remote locking-unlocking. I think they called it the 'pliplock'..?



Top Gear did an interesting number on them one time...see here...

Interesting thread. Recently we sold our 1994 Jaguar XJS .04 coupe. We owned it for 14 years, driving it annually or better, through B.C.Canada, Prince Rupert, to points all over the West Coast into Arizona. To our way of thinking there was no better road car for long distance driving. quite, comfortable with a respectable performance as a touring car. Yes, we had a personal relationship with a couple of Jag shops along the way and yes, we spent tons of money in maintenance cost over those years.
It was our belief that the suspension on this auto was up there with the best of touring cars, holding its own on mountain roads of good repair. We enjoyed driving into curves that showed 40 MPH signs at 65 and 70 MPH for the shear joy of the sensation!!
All well and good. in 1994 this level of suspension was superb to any at that time. now today not the case.
Two months ago cruising through the Sisques inroute to California coming and going, going through those curves, along side in the lane next to us on occasion, a Prius would be tooling along, I swear!!
It is obvious that the modern suspensions are equal and superior to our earlier model of same.
So- The end had arrived. We sold the Jag and purchased 2006 Chrysler 300 C AWD with little old lady miles showing. Now we will cruise those curves at the same rate and in a superb luxury level of comfort.
It was fun then and with this car, fun to be had.

Thanks for the thread. enjoy the content.
Al Johnson-Ketchikan

I guess a testament to how good a car is might be the length of time one keeps driving it..? More importantly, is that because you can't get rid of it or because you still just love driving it..? Well, my Celica GT4 turns 28 this month, (Jan '90 model), and I've been driving it for 26 of those years, so go figure.
Every day at work, it is parked next to the latest Golf GTI of a colleague. I still reckon my looks racier. It seems to have been a shape ahead of its time.

Ok, looked it up. It was a Renault 16TL.
Just looked at it on Wikipedia. I didn’t realize at the time what a well regarded technical car it was. All I remember is it went like the clappers and floated like it didn’t touch the road.

I had an '86 Renault Encore. Bought in St Louis, we drove it to Fairbanks, Alaska and it turned out to be the best Alaska car ever.
The suspension was perfect for rough roads. Not much power, but it handled well and with a good set of snow tires all around, it handled very well on snow packed or ice covered roads. I know because of it's lack of power, I didn't want to slow up going downhill and lose any speed.

It's weaknesses were the CV boots and joints took a beating in those temperatures.

Also, on one night drive back from Anc to Fair, 365 miles, at temperatures that ranged from -20 to -40F, it lost 3 qts of oil. A consequence of driving 70 mph in extremely cold temps, make the head warp temporarily.

I've owned 5 cars while living in Fairbanks:
'70 BMW,
'84 Jeep Cherokee
'85 Subaru
'86 Renault Encore
'88 BMW 2002 iX

I loved the iX. It was a great Fairbanks car, other than the expensive parts, but by then BMW was getting their act together and the care was far more dependable than my previous 3 BMW's.

But on a cost basis, the Renault was the best.

As I was restoring an older car, one possibly age-related factor emerged that I wasn’t expecting: safety. As much as I loved the TR6—and spent a small fortune upgrading it with competition springs, shocks, bushings, brakes, grade 8 hardware and a “new” overdrive transmission—I was at peace when I sold it. It cornered like a cat and the next step for me would have been to max out the horsepower. When I focused on the thin door panels and utter absence of modern safety features (except some crappy seatbelts), I decided I didn’t want to die that way. True, no one would force me to push the limits, but—knowing myself—I would have. I do miss it, but haven't regretted trading away style, mystique and a throaty exhaust note for a possibly longer lifespan.

I too like the older cars. Not because I think they're so great but because I'm a cheapskate and try like hell to avoid that huge depreciation that comes with new things one buys.


My oldest is a 1998 Explorer I've owned since day one that only has about 125K on it. We keep it down in AZ to use when we snowbird down there. Here's a pic of it towing our 1981 Boston Whaler.



Here's our other tow vehicle, a 2012 GMC with about 75K on it. We use it to tow our 2010 Boston Whaler.



My car is a 2005 BMW 330 convertible with about 77K. No photos of it because it doesn't have a hitch and I can't tow a boat with it. Sorry.

1989 Chevy S10 V6 5sp 4wd, 160k miles
2001 VW Jetta diesel 5sp 256k miles

Both getting a little long in the tooth, but both have been pretty reliable. Niggling little problems adding up though. No fan of the car buying process. Uggh.

1971 buick estate wagon. 227 inches long. 7000 lb tow rating. 5700lbs with me in it. 14mpg at 80 on the Hwy. A bit too noisy at 90. With some suspension mods, the vinyl bench seats are the limiting factor for handling. Holds the 4x8 sheets of plywood my late model suburban couldn’t. And can be repaired with chewing gum and bailing wire.

At 8 seconds to 60 it is a little slow off the line even though it will do burnouts at will.

I could argue for a car that just gets the job done with reasonable comfort and safety. That's me.

I always buy used, often cars that have well over 100K miles, but in good condition. Run them until I drive them to the junk yard and then repeat.

I have no love for cars. Only requirement is AC, comfort and safe. My choice for the past 40 year has been Suburbans. Had three over that time, and all worked well, except for the last that I sold because the AC was poor. My current on had 180K and I'll probably run it until I die, but run less than 5K per year.

Cars are only a consumable. Buy cheap, don't insure them, run until they die and get another.

Boats and planes you can fall in love with and have an emotional experience with. Not cars, they are your transportation bitch.

alormaria said:

I still keep a C5 Corvette for fun. It doesn't ride too well either but that's not it's point.

Click to expand...

Al.


Change your Run Flats to regular tires. Run Flats have harder rubber compared to regular tires. I bought my 1998 C5 Corvette new.


After a week, I ordered non run flats tires from tire rack and put them on. The ride of my C5 improved 50% and handling is better in my opinion.


The softer rubber tires are more forgiving with bumps in the road. I carry tire plugs in case of a flat and I have AAA.


Another plus of non run flats tires is, they are half the cost of run flats.


Cheers


H.

hfoster said:

Al.


Change your Run Flats to regular tires. Run Flats have harder rubber compared to regular tires. I bought my 1998 C5 Corvette new.


After a week, I ordered non run flats tires from tire rack and put them on. The ride of my C5 improved 50% and handling is better in my opinion.


The softer rubber tires are more forgiving with bumps in the road. I carry tire plugs in case of a flat and I have AAA.


Another plus of non run flats tires is, they are half the cost of run flats.


Cheers


H.

Click to expand...

I’ll second getting rid of the fun flats and carrying plugs and fix a flat. Cheaper, quieter and a much better ride. I think handling is better too. Less sensitive to uneven pavement.

McGillicuddy said:

Ok, looked it up. It was a Renault 16TL.
Just looked at it on Wikipedia. I didn’t realize at the time what a well regarded technical car it was. All I remember is it went like the clappers and floated like it didn’t touch the road.

Click to expand...

There were R16 TL and TS versions. Someone said R16 body roll imitated a drunken marshmallow. Cornering lean was alarming but road adhesion was surprisingly good. I refused an offer to navigate in one for rallies, but they were good cars. I was a member of Renault Car Club when the 16s were introduced. Rallied hard, the firewall developed massive spider web like cracking. There was a coupe version, R17 TL/TS, Renault lent me a17TS for a Club track event I directed, great fun to drive.
We shoehorned the engine from a 16TS into an R8 to use as a rally car. Twin Weber side draft carbs breathed more life into it but the overheating was monumental. The 16TS motor was chosen to power the pretty Lotus Europa.

Misters Keller and Foster!

Good advice about those run flats. I've had Michelin ZPs on it for the last decade and just switched to BF Goodrich non-runflats. The difference is amazing! And I thought the Michelins were good after the original Goodyears.

Now since I don't have to show up on time in a suit to an office every day I have the luxury of patching my own tires or waiting for AAA to tow me home. Now it rides like a sports car not a truck. I should have done this years ago.

I also switched out the "wagon wheels" for a set of the original equipment "magnesium" wheels. That's the ticket.

alormaria said:

Misters Keller and Foster!

Good advice about those run flats. I've had Michelin ZPs on it for the last decade and just switched to BF Goodrich non-runflats. The difference is amazing! And I thought the Michelins were good after the original Goodyears.

Now since I don't have to show up on time in a suit to an office every day I have the luxury of patching my own tires or waiting for AAA to tow me home. Now it rides like a sports car not a truck. I should have done this years ago.

I also switched out the "wagon wheels" for a set of the original equipment "magnesium" wheels. That's the ticket.

Click to expand...

That is great Al. Now you can enjoy the ride.


One thing you must remember.


NEVER mismatch the tires. If you place pair of run flats and a pair of non-run flats on your C5 you will have a really bad day!


Cheers Mate.


H.

The one car I wish I would have kept from my younger days is my 1968 Plymouth GTX. God I loved that car.


When I bought it in 1977 (for $375.00) it needed some body work, however the motor was top notch. Someone had replaced the 440 super commando with a 426 hemi putting out 425 hp with 4 on the floor.


The GTX back in its time was thought as a family car and was over looked for years as a muscle car. However it would scoot and shoot and I could even pull the frontend off the ground.


I really do miss that car.


Cheers.


H.

hfoster said:

The one car I wish I would have kept from my younger days is my 1968 Plymouth GTX. God I loved that car.

Click to expand...

Had one, only mine was a '71. 440, auto with "slap-stick" shifter, with a vacuum-controlled air scoop on the hood. Ran like a scalded cat... in a straight line. Wouldn't corner all that great, but the ride wasn't mushy at all. Didn't love it but it was very decent, and suited me at the time.

Had to bag it when that state eventually allowed insurance companies to charge a lot extra for muscle-cars.

-Chris

ranger42c said:

Had one, only mine was a '71. 440, auto with "slap-stick" shifter, with a vacuum-controlled air scoop on the hood. Ran like a scalded cat... in a straight line. Wouldn't corner all that great, but the ride wasn't mushy at all. Didn't love it but it was very decent, and suited me at the time.

Had to bag it when that state eventually allowed insurance companies to charge a lot extra for muscle-cars.

-Chris

Click to expand...

The 70’s GTX’s were okay, however they didn’t have the flair of the 67,68,69’s in my opinion. I believe in 1970 they started combining the car styles. GTX, Super bird, Super Bee, stuff like that which in my opinion took away from the cars flair.

Even the 67 GTX was really different from the 68 and 69. The 60’s Roadrunners were almost the same as the GTXs which all came out of the Belvedere. In any case, they all were nice cars to look at.


Most cars of the 50’60’s and 70’s couldn’t corner with dang and don’t forget the crappy breaks. .


Cheers.


H.

Seevee said:

Not cars, they are your transportation bitch.

Click to expand...

Humm, so why respond to the thread?

hfoster said:

The 70’s GTX’s were okay, however they didn’t have the flair of the 67,68,69’s in my opinion. I believe in 1970 they started combining the car styles. GTX, Super bird, Super Bee, stuff like that which in my opinion took away from the cars flair.

Even the 67 GTX was really different from the 68 and 69. The 60’s Roadrunners were almost the same as the GTXs which all came out of the Belvedere. In any case, they all were nice cars to look at.


Most cars of the 50’60’s and 70’s couldn’t corner with dang and don’t forget the crappy breaks. .


Cheers.


H.

Click to expand...

You can do a lot to the older cars to improve handling. My 70 442 drives like a modern car. Better springs shocks swaybars and steering box and alignment. I’m almost there with my 71 wagon. Need to lower front an inch, replace the steering box and find a new alignment shop that will work with me. As it is now the limiting factor for handling is the vinyl bench seat.