Better Beaters - Building Cars and Daily Drivers

 Hero to Zero? Really?

Yeah, sure.

Further thoughts on this topic. Just one old man's rant!

What had once been considered to be pretty great, should it now be considered to be mediocre, or even worse?

Don't we expect and welcome improvement? 

You have to be sure to apply the appropriate standards of judgement.

One of which is utility.

Can the item in question still satisfactorily perform the function for which it was manufactured and intended? 

I have a large collection of old car magazines, but there is almost unlimited material available on the internet. I also have the benefit of living through the last fifty years, witnessing the change as an enthusiast. As Pee Wee Herman said so eloquently in his movie, at the end when he's in the drive in theater with his girlfriend. He was watching a movie that was made of his adventure. His girl scolds him for not paying attention to the movie, and Pee Wee replies; "I don't have to watch the movie, I lived it!"

There are advantages of actually having been there as the events unfold. 

Of particular interest are those issues that carried tests of a newly released model. They were usually filled with enthusiastic descriptions by the road testers. I remember when the Fox Bodied Mustang replaced the Pinto based Mustang II. Initially there was a lot of excitement.

When the SN97 replaced the Fox series, the reviewers found the car to be more refined in handling, ride and interior appointments. The quality of the plastic panels was praised, especially in comparison to the contemporary Camaro. Ford maintained the same design for eleven years so it became familiar to testers and other similarly priced cars had improved the levels of their interiors. 

Steady improvement by the competition and development over time leads to higher expectations.  Adoption of new technologies leads to substantial improvements. The fitting of catalytic converters in 1975 lead to much better driveability, economy and most importantly, reduced emissions. This provided an improvement during the last days of carburetor equipped engines. 

Incorporation of electronic fuel injection and engine management systems resulted in an incredible acceleration of the development of the ICE engine that we are experiencing Today.

The reality of it is, except for the "Malaise Era" of the mid 70's through the mid 1980's, newer cars have been steadily improving every year. In performance, safety, economy, and convenience.  Many contemporary mass market cars like Hondas and Toyotas when equipped with V6 engines will quite quite handily out perform cherished performance models of the 1960's. 

So where does his leave lovers and owners of classic models? 

Unless they are committed to preforming extensive upgrades and modifications to their cars, they will find that they compare poorly to modern iron. The important thing is not to get sucked into that mindset. Mark Twain summed it up nicely.

Almost all higher spec and performance cars from the recent past will perform more than satisfactorily during normal driving, whether on the street or highway. They can cruise at contemporary freeway speeds and keep up and even exceed traffic conditions. There is no need to hug the right lane at a whimpy 55 mph, though you often see cars from the late 1950's and early 60's doing just that. I once passed a beautifully restored late '60's Muscle Car trundling along in the right hand lane at 55 mph.  What's up with that?

My '77 Datsun 280Z was my daily in the late 1990's. It was capable of cruising at 100 mph. with good handling and stopping power. My '92 300ZX was, and still is, as capable as any modern car. 

I have owned and daily driven many older cars, and this was in the 1970's and later decades. I dove my '64 Cadillac in the mid 70's and I drove it like a modern car. My '70 Coupe de Ville was a great performer that I drove to LA and out to Fresno. Even my '57 was driven as my daily from 1976 to 1980. I drove it on the freeway all the time, back and forth to work, school, and anywhere else. I drove it out to Stockton for a college field trip. My '71 and '66 Rivieras were both driven in the same manner.

My last foray into the old car world was in the 2010 era, my '70 Mustang coupe with the 250 six and automatic. It was capable of a 70 mph cruising speed,with a top speed of almost 100 mph. I drove it down US101 to Santa Maria for the West Coast Kustoms show and I maintained 70 mph. up the Cuesta Grade on the way home. 

The major penalty will be in low fuel economy, these old cars didn't get very good gas mileage then, and they won't now!

The other real issue is poor braking, with those cars not equipped with disc brakes, Lower priced cars often had small drum brakes. The higher priced car usually had satisfactory stopping power even with drums some of the less expensive models were not so well equipped. 

Please, no tailgating! 

AACA member Bloo drove his '39 Pontiac from Oregon to Wisconsin.

Another AACA memeber routinely road trips his beautiful '38 Buick.
I just love this photo.

There was a wonderful thread on the AACA forum that concerned a member driving his '39 Pontiac sedan from Oregon the Wisconsin. The member shared his trip on back roads, through small towns, and country highways. On the trip he dealt with the limitations of the car, the low cruising speed, (53 mph. exactly!) poor headlamps, wipers and low fuel economy. He even experienced running off the road trying to avoid hitting a deer! 

This was a pre war car and it was designed and driven in a pre freeway America. This doesn't mean that it can't be driven today, you just have to keep it's limitations in mind.

By the mid 1950's cars were capable of current freeway speeds, speeds that were higher than the capabilities of the tires, brakes and handling, but that didn't stop drivers from speeding down the highway!

What has gotten my ire up lately (again!) is reading various road tests of the Lincoln Navigator. The improved 2002 model had a new, high quality, dual cockpit style dash, along with new seats, and door  panels. The chassis received an independent rear suspension system that improved the ride, handling, and interior seating arrangements. All suitably upscale. In 2005 the exterior received some freshening up with a new front fascia, and the body cladding had been simplified, resulting in a more luxurious, upscale look. The engine was also changed in '05 to a three valve design similar to the one used in the Expedition, but it was improved with the addition of 10 ft. lbs. of torque, it also weighed less, and the transmission was now upgraded to a six speed unit. 

This was all reported by the testers who praised the Nav for it's surprising nimble handling, improved braking, and higher skid pad numbers. The utility and comfort of the vehicle was noted in comparison to it's competitors. While the acceleration lagged behind the 6.0 Escalade, the fuel economy was slightly better. 

While looking at road tests of the first twin turbo V6 models, there was a lot of bashing of the last V8 models. Some of the numbers that were quoted were inaccurate, and were lower than what had been posted in earlier road tests. The figures were similar to the older initial, pre 2002 Navs. 

Now they were saying that these older V8 Navs were pretty poor all around, in comparison to the new turbo cars. Sure the news models are improved, but the previous models were more than satisfactory at the time. One comparison between the '14 and '15 models said that the car was basically as good as it always was, now it just had a bit more oomph.

Of course the road testers usually aren't putting their hard earned dollars down on these cars, they get to drive them for free.

I should know better. Magazine testers in the enthusiast press always color their comments to favor the new models. My '96 Mustang especially, was derided for years after it's introduction, though it was praised initially. Likewise with my '06 Mustang. ( It only has 300 hp!)

How can I stand the embarrassment of driving that car?