A New Perspective on “Old Cars”

[Paul Dobbin]

A New Perspective on “Old Cars”

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

Like many of you, my idea of what an old cars is, is stuck in my experiences. I always though an old car had to be older than I was and I certainly wasn’t old yet.

When I bought my first 1934 Ford, it surely was an “Antique Car” to me. The year was 1972 and the 1934 Ford was 38 years old! In today’s terms, that’s a 1972 automobile which I can’t even think of as an “old car” yet. After all, the little old people of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><st1:place>Florida</st1:place></st1:State> still drive cars older than that on a daily basis. Look around our grocery store parking lots and see 60’s and 70’s cars on a regular basis.

I don’t recall ever seeing a 1934 car at the grocery store back in 1972. This caused me to think of other really old cars I’ve restored. In 1981 I bought a 1915 Model T Ford basket case to restore. (Subtract 1915 from 1981 and it was only 66 years old) Still older than me, but today a 66 year old car is a 1944, a full ten years younger (newer) than my 1934 Ford.

Try the math on your cars. My 1931 Model A Ford was only 46 years old in 1977, same as a 1964 car now. I know a guy that drives his 64 ½ Mustang beater to work every day. Somehow it’s not the same. Maybe if I was born in 1975 (35 years old), and wanted to have a really old car like a 1964 Falcon, I could think of it as an antique car, but I doubt it.

In 1990 I bought a 1966 VW to tow around the country behind our “Roadhouse”. Yea, it was 24 years old but they were everywhere (20,000,0000 VW Bugs) Quick check is like a 1986 today, but now at 44 years old it still doesn’t seem like an old car to me compared to the 1934 Ford I bought in 1972 (38 years old). I still tow it as a dinghy, and have had it on a couple Founders Tours, while feeling guilty for not bringing an old car.

Somehow it’s not the same.

Your thoughts?

[ex98thdrill]

Paul,

Living in New York, quite often the engines outlast the bodies, so the guy that you know that still drives his Mustang to work every day?? That car would've rusted in two more than 20 years ago.

When you see a vehicle built in 1972 around here in good shape, you appreciate it. Down in Florida it's still common transportation.

I don't look at a 1972 vehicle as a used car, but I do look that way towards a Chevy Citation. I think the eye and the opinion rests with whatever age you are. A guy in his 70's might feel the same way about a '57 Chevy.

[Dave@Moon]

Cars are simply better built out of better materials than ever today, and they likely will only get better in the future. I junked my first car when it was only 7 years old. Rust and a bad transmission made it uneconomical to keep it on the road. I had a neighbor who junked a 1971 Nova (due almost exclusively to rust) in 1975. They still had 3 more payments to make on it.

According to the NADA, the median age of cars on the road in 1969 was 5.1 years. In 2008 that statistic had ballooned to 9.4 years, almost double. This despite a similar near-doubling of the average miles driven per year (8.685 to 15,000) over the same period.

[Reatta Man]

I think you have to keep WWII and the post-war boom of the 1950's and 1960's in perspective when comparing a car from the 30's and a car from the 70's.

There was a LOT of money flowing into Detroit in the post-WW II years, and lots of competition. This was NOT the case in the 20s and 30s; many companies were just barely surviving.

As a result, the introduction of every power option imaginable, sealed-beam and then halogen lights, climate control, automatic transmissions from the clutchless standard to today's 6-speed automatics, cruise, tilt, tinted safety glass, small-block V-8 engines, every carb combination imaginable, traction control, posi-traction, seat belts, suspension systems and even stereo systems came about as a result of the post war boom.

So a 30-40 year old car in the 70's is really hard to compare to a 30-40 year old car of today. And, when you consider the improvements in the assembly lines and the steel used in the last few years, it's not hard to imagine a 30-40 year old car being driven today, especially in the South, where little to no salt is ever used on the roads.

The other consideration is that a lot of pre-WW II cars ended up as scrap for war production, so the likelyhood of finding that vintage car goes way down, when compared to a 1970 Chevy Impala or Nova. There are a lot of older cars being dragged out of barns and storage sheds every day lately, and then restored, whereas back then, the car would have been donated or sold for war support.

Joe

[carbking]

Cars are simply better built out of better materials than ever today, and they likely will only get better in the future. I junked my first car when it was only 7 years old. Rust and a bad transmission made it uneconomical to keep it on the road. I had a neighbor who junked a 1971 Nova (due almost exclusively to rust) in 1975. They still had 3 more payments to make on it.

According to the NADA, the median age of cars on the road in 1969 was 5.1 years. In 2008 that statistic had ballooned to 9.4 years, almost double. This despite a similar near-doubling of the average miles driven per year (8.685 to 15,000) over the same period.

PLASTIC IS BETTER THAN STEEL?????????????????????????

Give me 1960's era cars when qualily was still more important than the lowest price!

Jon.

[LINC400]

Two things

First, no one likes to think they are getting old. When someone buys their first old car, they do not want to think of it as a used beater. It is an antique regardless of what year it is at that time or how bad of shape it was in. However, 25 years later, people do not like to think that a car that was new when they were buying their first antique is now an antique also. So that 1955 will always be an antique, yet they will claim a 1975 is not, even though it is probably twice as old as their 1955 was when they got it.

Second, cars change less the newer they are. You would not want to be driving a 1959 Cadillac in 1969 or a 1947 in 1957. It was hopelessly dated. It could never pass as a newer car. However, now, you can have a 10 year old Cadillac (or Ford or Buick), and if it is in mint condition, the average person (not car guy) will never guess it is that old. My Buick is 16 years old, and most people think it is maybe 3 or 4 years old. That would never work with a 1959 in 1975. So when my Buick turns 25, is it really that surprising that people will have a hard time thinking of it as an antique?

I remember the old lady neighbor that had a 1964 Impala in 1974. It was in mint condition, probably had 20,000 miles on it. Yet everybody commented on that ancient old car of hers, they can't believe she still has that thing. Would a 10 year old car now cause neighbors to comment? Nope. Most would have no clue a car is 10 years old unless it is a beat up wreckage. It was not the quality, materials, or condition of that 1964 that caused comments. It was the style.

Also, I have a hard time believing that plastic and computers are better materials than metal and wood. You can pull a 1955 whatever out of a barn, put in a battery, pour gas in it, and start it up. I do not think you will be able to do that with a 2010 anything in 2035. I can't get plastic and computer parts for my Mark IV now, and it has nowhere near the amount of either that a 2010 does.

Edited February 10, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Progress is just so much slower now than it used to be.

Ours is the first generation in 500 years to travel slower than the previous one.

Like a baseball thrown in the air, it goes up fast, then slower and slower until it stops and drops back, gathering speed as it falls.

The ball is at the apex of the curve and has started falling back.

[Guest Skyking]

Second, cars change less the newer they are. You would not want to be driving a 1959 Cadillac in 1969 or a 1947 in 1957. It was hopelessly dated. It could never pass as a newer car. However, now, you can have a 10 year old Cadillac (or Ford or Buick), and if it is in mint condition, the average person (not car guy) will never guess it is that old. My Buick is 16 years old, and most people think it is maybe 3 or 4 years old. That would never work with a 1959 in 1975. So when my Buick turns 25, is it really that surprising that people will have a hard time thinking of it as an antique?

This is so true...................Hey! We're all car guys & gals here on this forum. I bet there isn't one person that can tell the year of any car built from the 90's until now. Most would even have trouble with identifing the make including me.

[Dave@Moon]

Progress is just so much slower now than it used to be.

Ours is the first generation in 500 years to travel slower than the previous one.

Like a baseball thrown in the air, it goes up fast, then slower and slower until it stops and drops back, gathering speed as it falls.

The ball is at the apex of the curve and has started falling back.

Wow.

#1. I drive a car with 96 cubic feet of interior space that gets 45+ mpg while still getting 0-60 times under 9 seconds. 10 years ago that was a pipe dream hope for a new technology. 15 years ago that new technology was a pipe dream itself. In other words, progress in car technology has never been faster!

Cars are more complex, and it requires a lot more investment in a design to get it on the road. Therefore it has to last in the market longer. That means the common cars on our roads are less interesting to look at, but it does NOT mean time is standing still while body designs are. New tail lamps and hubcaps do not progress make

#2 Traveling slower? Apparently you never tried to cross I-80 through Iowa in 1980, desperately trying to keep it below 59 mph and straining for radar traps.

#3 I think you are falling into a common trap of aging and preserving the past, nostalgia. Nostalgia is OK if it doesn't blind you to the promise of tomorrow or the blessings of today. I love antique cars, but I thank God my ride to work is in either my Prius or Ford Ranger instead of the cars of my past. There's no way any antique cars could possibly perform as well or as efficiently as either one.:cool:

Life is good, and getting better. Don't give up!

[Seldenguy]

Let the record show, I do agree with Dave on his answer to Rusty. I love my old cars, the older the better. But there was a separation point in the late '80s when all manufacturers got out of their cubicles and started giving us the great cars we have today. We say they can't improve upon them,but they do!--Bob

[LINC400]

Wow.

#1. I drive a car with 96 cubic feet of interior space that gets 45+ mpg while still getting 0-60 times under 9 seconds. 10 years ago that was a pipe dream hope for a new technology. 15 years ago that new technology was a pipe dream itself. In other words, progress in car technology has never been faster!

Cars are more complex, and it requires a lot more investment in a design to get it on the road. Therefore it has to last in the market longer. That means the common cars on our roads are less interesting to look at, but it does NOT mean time is standing still while body designs are. New tail lamps and hubcaps do not progress make

#2 Traveling slower? Apparently you never tried to cross I-80 through Iowa in 1980, desperately trying to keep it below 59 mph and straining for radar traps.

#3 I think you are falling into a common trap of aging and preserving the past, nostalgia. Nostalgia is OK if it doesn't blind you to the promise of tomorrow or the blessings of today. I love antique cars, but I thank God my ride to work is in either my Prius or Ford Ranger instead of the cars of my past. There's no way any antique cars could possibly perform as well or as efficiently as either one.:cool:

Life is good, and getting better. Don't give up!

1. So 50 years later with expensive batteries and complex technology, you have a car that gets maybe 5 mpg better than my father's Metropolitan. Most new cars will get less. And while you might think the Prius is the most wonderful car ever made, not everyone wants one. I certainly don't. Maybe if a hybrid Camaro or Town Car comes out with 300 horsepower I'd be interested, until then forget it.

2. Apparently you have never driven in rush hour in Chicago.

3. While some of us might look at the past through rose colored glasses, I think you are looking at the future through them. We are now 10 years into this next century. and what do we have to show for it? I am not talking political b.s., I mean stuff that makes our lives better. TV, radio, movies, airplanes, cars, microwaves, computers, Ebay, forums like this, all came about in the last century or even the very end of the 19th century. So what came about since 2000 to make our lives better than we did not have before 1999? I really can't think of anything. Maybe some medical advances or I-pods or something? Certainly a pale comparison to what came about in the last century so far.

In the 1970's you could get anything from a Chevette to an Eldorado convertible. Cars with actual size differences, not just a price difference. And you could get most in 2 door, 4 door, station wagon, and convertible. My Mark IV came in 26 colors with a matching interior in almost as many colors. Now you get a 4 door sedan in 5 colors with gray interior, all look pretty much the same regardless of price. Yesterday's cars were rolling sculpture. Today's are rolling appliances. How is that better? Sorry gas mileage isn't everything, and there were cars that got good gas mileage before Priuses. And there is very little that is available on today's cars that you could not get in the 1970's or 80's. Basically I-pod connectors and cupholders. Both huge advancements.

[Dave@Moon]

1. So 50 years later with expensive batteries and complex technology, you have a car that gets maybe 5 mpg better than my father's Metropolitan.

Did you ever ride in the back seat of that Met? I rode in my grandmother's, once. I didn't fit. I was 5. My 45 mpg car seats 5 adults with a 16 cu. ft. trunk and will do 110 mph (don't try that in a Met!).

Meanwhile the Prius (and several other hybrids), not only triple the gas mileage of the Nash Ambassador (the nearest AMC size equivalent for interior space and trunk room), they also double the performance stats as well (or halve them, as appropriate such as in braking distance). In the mid-2000s hybrids were a total game changer in automobiles, and in less than 10 years they will be (by far) the majority of available vehicles.

I don't know about 300 hp hybrids, but Honda did make a hybrid Accord in the mid-2000s that'll blow the doors off of a 300 hp Mustang (but not the 400 hp model). You weren't interested then. No one was. It's history now.

Also Ipods are amazing as well!

Edited February 11, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[LINC400]

I have been a passenger in a Prius a couple of times. Sorry I'm not impressed. I have also had a Chevy Aveo as a rental. I don't care how much either of these save on gas, I'd rather be in a larger, safer, more comfortable, more stylish, faster car. I would never buy a Met either, but at least it has style and character. The Prius just has zero appeal to me.

We have 3 cars, 1976, 1994, and 2006. The newer the car is, the cheaper the materials, the worse the visibility, and the fewer choices you had when buying it new. And the 2006 really doesn't offer much that the 1994 or even 1976 doesn't except for a few computer gadgets. None of which are necessary for daily driving.

Looking at the first 10 years of the 20th century, and all that came into existence at that time, I-pods and one car that appeals to a limited number of people is not a very impressive start to this century. Not to mention the fact that the one car is not all that groundbreaking considering that gas, diesel, steam, electric, propane, natural gas, etc. powered cars were all available in the last century. By the way, the Prius and Honda Insight were first on the market in the 1990's, which still makes them last century's technological advancement, not this one's.

Edited February 11, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

Did you ever ride in the back seat of that Met? I rode in my grandmother's, once. I didn't fit. I was 5.

That's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D

"I think I pee'ed my pants"

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I have been a passenger in a Prius a couple of times. Sorry I'm not impressed. I have also had a Chevy Aveo as a rental. I don't care how much either of these save on gas, I'd rather be in a larger, safer, more comfortable, more stylish, faster car. I would never buy a Met either, but at least it has style and character. The Prius just has zero appeal to me.

We have 3 cars, 1976, 1994, and 2006. The newer the car is, the cheaper the materials, the worse the visibility, and the fewer choices you had when buying it new. And the 2006 really doesn't offer much that the 1994 or even 1976 doesn't except for a few computer gadgets. None of which are necessary for daily driving.

Looking at the first 10 years of the 20th century, and all that came into existence at that time, I-pods and one car that appeals to a limited number of people is not a very impressive start to this century. Not to mention the fact that the one car is not all that groundbreaking considering that gas, diesel, steam, electric, propane, natural gas, etc. powered cars were all available in the last century. By the way, the Prius and Honda Insight were first on the market in the 1990's, which still makes them last century's technological advancement, not this one's.

Let's face it the '76 Lincoln Mark IV may well have been the best overall road car ever built and while I love driving my '57 Eldorado, my '58 Mercury and '62 Olds Starfires they are nothing compared to the two '76 Marks I have. We have much more recent Lincoln Town Cars, but not even they compare in with the driving comfort and pleasure of the '76 Marks. Fuel economy, well let's put it this way; properly tuned a '76 Mark with it's huge 460 c.i. power plant will get between 21-22 mpg with the cruise set on 70. They are terrible gas guzzlers with stop and go driving thanks to weighing nearly 6,000 lbs, but on the road they are not all that less fuel efficient than one of today's shoe boxes with wheels. Most people are not aware of the fact that had the Mark IV speedo been calibrated to 200 mph a '76 Mark IV flat out could easily get darn close to pegging a 200 mph speedometer on a more or less flat road. They are just pretty much loafing along at even 100 mph.

Moral, lots of electronic gadgets or other so called improvements have actually failed to deliver significant enhancement to the driving circumstances most will ever experience. Some of the so called enhancements of the last thirty years have only served to reduce manufacturing cost at the expense of consumer driving pleasure and enjoyment.

[Dave@Moon]

That's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D

"I think I pee'ed my pants"

Every word was true. Her's was a yellow/white coupe. What's worse is I was back there one time with my 3 year old brother. Ouch!

It was a very short trip.

[Guest Skyking]

Dave, I can't laugh anymore..........my sides hurt!:D:eek:

[Jim Bollman]

I drove a 61 Met in my college days. I regularly carried 5 and sometimes 6 college kids (me included) when I had the only wheels. Now I admit we only went across town for burgers or pizza. It was a tight fit and it was fun seeing peoples looks when we started getting out. I did have to replace the rear springs after the first year. And the occasional number 6 person was a lanky 6' 2" guy, he would fold up in the trunk, put a rag in the latch so he could open up the lid and wave at people and get out when we got to the other end (he didn't trust us).

[Larry Schramm]

The best road ride I think is a Suburban. For both road trips and pulling a trailer.

[Guest]

I think IF any of you have, or had been in the auto industry recently, you would already know how fast things are changing. Most of that change is under the metal/or plastic. Ever see that crash test a few months back between a new smaller Chevy and a 59 Chevy 4 dr vista roof hartop? I know which car I would rather be in. The industry is at a crossroad in terms propulsion systems and even tighter emission/ fuel economy/safety standards/paint standards, the list goes on. Think of all the car companies that went out of business by the mid fifties, and think of how many more would have gone under if they had the regulations that automakers have today. Automakers have much more on their minds today than yesterday, it's that simple/ or depending how you look at it, more complex.

Don

[Restorer32]

I do not remember a time in my 60 or so years on this Earth that someone wasn't proclaiming that we were at a "crossroads".

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Good one, Restorer. And I remember my Dad saying "They dont make em like they youse ta." He thought the new cars had inferereior metal. There was this wrong and that wrong. And that was in 1951 or 1952!!

Ben

[mrpushbutton]

The auto industry has gotten much better at making daily transportation appliances. I put over 200,000 miles on two 1990s vintage GM cars with the 3.8 V6 with only normal maintenance, and they still drove well when I sold them. As much as I like old cars (and I do !) the cars from the 1950s (I have one) which everyone vaunts as "when cars were good" are worn out after 100,000 miles. Front end is shot, trans is on its way, engines held up better, but some of them were bad oil burners by then, and the bodies rusted through.

The industry does not make many Heirloom collectibles any more--Chrysler is making a couple at the moment, and it almost cost them the game here in the last year.

You just can't compare one to the other, the old cars have a heirloom quality to them, they can, in most cases be infinitely restored and kept running (as long as there is gas) and have a heft and permanence newer cars lack.

Having driven since 1975, when my first car was a '65 Ford, and having driven cars from 1958-2008 every day, back and forth to work, i wouldn't want to go back to a pre-1990s car for everyday driving, in terms of reliability, safety and comfort. They aren't collector's heirlooms, and I know that going in. In the four season Michigan weather they are a better car for daily use IMO.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

This topic surfaces here fairly regularly. New car quality overall is pretty remarkable. Two Explorers each around 120K plus with minimal maintanence - I would buy another one in a heartbeat. But will never be collectible in my opinion. Love my new CTS but that is questionable as a future collectible - I do not think it will be as "old" in 25 years as the examples noted above.

I think there are cars out there in the 25 year old range that are collectible - it really depends on the collector. I do like the fact that the "newer" antique cars (by AACA definition) are often affordable and we can argue about era all we want but in the end it all comes down to what turns you on. As Linc. points out, the 70s were a high water mark for individuality in ordering, unheard of today. But I do think interesting cars are being made again, so who knows what will be collected in the future. Some cars are collectible well before 25 years because the collector makes up the rules around desirablity, not any of the many organizations and clubs out there - they only exist when interest in a vehicle warrents it.

The one thing that seems to come with the "newer antiques" that I do not like, though at least in my state, is the use of these cars as beaters or daily runners with antique plates. Not what you are supposed to do and I hope the actions of those using their '85 whatever every day do not eventually cause those who use the plates properly to lose any privilages - the idea being preserving history and limited use, for lower registration and taxes, which the old car hobby worked for here in CT. I am always afraid legislators, who often take a one size fits all approach will eventually notice this. Not a day goes by that I do not see an 80s car on antique plates here in CT obviously in regular use. I would not mind a crack down if it would ultimately benefit those using the privilage properly. Otherwise, live and let live...

Edited February 12, 2010 by Steve_Mack_CT
spelling (see edit history)

[padgett]

Have been through all the stages. At one point all of my cars had 400 cid or better and most had gearing that turned 3200 rpm at 70.

While at GMI before the first energy crisis I had a 67 Camaro convertible with a Rochester FI (could pick up a complete one for $100 then with distributer) & Saginaw 4-speed that could get 23-25 mpg at 70 mph (pre-55), meet '75 emissions standards witout a cat (they had this IC-RED competition & was personna non grata for believing a big V-8 could get good MPG/low HC & CO - part of the reason I left GM shortly after graduation).

Point I am making is that engines of the 70s could have been made much more efficient, but at the time, the public did not care. Before 1973 gas could still be had for 20-30 cents a gallon (and many paid the 2 cents extra per gallon for premium even though their cars ran worse).

It took federal mandates in the form of CAFE to begin the same changes that had already occurred in most other countries with much higher taxes on gasoline and even taxes on engine displacement. Of course few American owner's manuals had instructions on how to do a valve job.

Since day one, cars have been going through a constant improvement package as the new 2010 540 hp Mustang demontrates. NET hp not gross.

Unfortunately, the later 70s and 80 were mostly "bags on the side" modifications to meet government regs. After that the real improvements began such as the O/D automatics with lockup torque converters that were the first real improvement in transmissions since the early 60's that got revs under 2000 at 70. The computers with feedback controls and real fuel injection that got many horses from much smaller dispacements (today's engines rival europeans) while going 200,000 miles and more due to tighter tolerances, better oils, and lower revs.

(that said, some of the best 327s I built for racing strated with 100,000 mile cores - the ones that lived that long were right)

So these are the good old days just to me things got "good enough" by the late '80s and I like not belonging to the "book of the month club".

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

"The good old days" are always those days you remember when at least some things in life were fun and not a drudge. For those who are "youngsters" today, these may be "The good old days" some 20 or 30 years from now. As for a personal opinion of the good old days, they were from 1953 (more or less) to 1973. Cars were great, music was great, and just about everyone was having a damn good time, except for those of us who may have seen S.E. Asia for a year or two.

What took place with auto design and engineering in the 1950s set the stage for the automobile of the future, and took it further away from the horse and buggy; no longer did cars resemble a modified horse drawn carriage. That future is now. Unfortunately interior styling really sucks on most automobiles being sold today.

[Dandy Dave]

My Granddad, and my Great Grandmother were in the antiques business for many many years, going back as far as the teens and 20's. As a young un, in the 1960's, I remember asking him how old something had to be to qualify as a genuine antique. He replied, "100 years old." and he was in his 50's then. According to his Wisdom, My 1915 Buick has 5 more years to go to be a genuine Antique. All you folks with those "Late Model" cars have a long way to go according to Gramps. Gramps would catagorize things newer as, "Collectibles." Dandy Dave!

[LINC400]

My Granddad, and my Great Grandmother were in the antiques business for many many years, going back as far as the teens and 20's. As a young un, in the 1960's, I remember asking him how old something had to be to qualify as a genuine antique. He replied, "100 years old." and he was in his 50's then. According to his Wisdom, My 1915 Buick has 5 more years to go to be a genuine Antique. All you folks with those "Late Model" cars have a long way to go according to Gramps. Gramps would catagorize things newer as, "Collectibles." Dandy Dave!

100 years old is for household items and art, not cars. Although I think U.S. Customs is the only one that still goes by this.

[LINC400]

When I buy a car, I do not look for gas mileage and safety features. You can get that with any one of the myriad of uninteresting econoboxes. (econoeggs actually). I want something that stands apart.

People look back at cars of their youth and exclaim, "Look at those fins, all that chrome, etc." I highly doubt that people looking back at cars from their youth in the future will exclaim "Wow, look at that Toyota, remember what great gas mileage we got?"

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

I think this is hugely a matter of "personal perspective", local DMV classifications not withstanding...

When I was a little kid ( earliest memory takes me back to about three years' old - 1970), my parents drove used cars ( still do ); at that time, Mom drove a '61 Rambler American convertible, Dad drove a '55 De Soto Sportsman 2 dr HT. These were not collector cars, but their everyday transportation.

My grandfather was driving a '56 Chevy Bel Air "Sport Coupe" ( stovebolt six and 3-speed ), yellow with a black top and sweep; he also had a very tired '54 Chevy 3/4 ton pick-up that he bought in 1968. Around 1972, Grandad traded-in the '56 for a '67 Impala "Sport Coupe", and in 1974, he retired the '54 Chevy PU for a 1965 Ford F-100, both of which he drove until shortly before his death in 1985.

So, my personal experience was that "new cars" were around 5 to 15 years old, and nobody we knew bought a new car every three years.

When Grandad (or one of the uncles) retired a car, it usually got parked in my Grandad's field:

'50 Ford Tudor, '61 Beetle, '61 Chevy Biscayne wagon, etc... we kids used to play in them, at the risk of angering the resident wasps.:eek:

As for "antiques", my Uncle Mike had inherited the family homestead, and there was a long, low open shed, filled with... stuff, including my other grandfather's '41 Chevy Special Deluxe 2-dr, and a '39 Studebaker coupe. Again, not "collector cars", just retired jalopies.

My first experience at a car museum was around 1971; I was about four years old, and my parents took me on a day trip to southern PA (Lancaster?), where we stopped at an antique car museum ( don't remember the name or location; might have been along US 30, east of York ?), and parked out front under the canopy was a '30 Model A Ford Coupe -black with Apple Green wire wheels. My first look at an "old-fashioned car", as I called them.

Inside there were more cars, mostly 1900 to 1930; the only detail I really remember was one of the later brass cars had the hood open, and I was intrigued that the cooling fan had a round hoop around the perimeter of the blades.

That, and in the gift shop there was one of those motorized model kits of a clear plastic V-8 engine. (But I digress).

A few years later, (1977?) we visited Zimmerman's "Automobile-a-rama"... woo-hoo-hoo ! What a treat that was !!!!

So, to my little mind, "antique cars" have wood or wire spoked wheels, skinny tires, spark plugs on top of the cylinder head, a hand-crank, "ah-OOOOH-gah" horns, etc.

That concept still persists in my mind, forty years later.

I also have trouble thinking of cars that I remember as "new cars" now being considered "antiques"... Pintos, Mustang II's, Caprices, etc.

Popular culture perspective changes over the years too, to cite two literary examples:

1) John Steinbeck's late 1930's novel "The Grapes of Wrath": he describes the 1926 Hudson Super-Six sedan pruchased by the Joads in vivid detail, and specifically refers to it as "ancient". The story is set around 1939-1940; the car was fifteen years old... that's "ancient"?! :confused:

2) I have an issue of "Fleet and Commerical Vehicle Monthly" (a trucking industry trade magazine) from early in 1942, amongst the various articles discussing keeping truck fleets going during "the duration", and coping with gas & tire rationing, and parts shortages, there was an article on fleet maintenance, hilighting a very large dairy in California. The dairy had modern trucks in its fleet, mostly 1935 and newer, but their "test goat" was "an ancient Pierce Arrow truck from 1928". Again - here is a 1940's account describing a 15 year-old vehicle as "ancient"... :confused::confused:

When I started driving, in high school (1984), I drove Grandad's '54 Chevy pick-up, then my own 1962 Falcon four-door; my peers certainly acknowledged that these were "old", but no one would have called them "ancient"...

Your results may vary...

:cool:

[Dave@Moon]

I highly doubt that people looking back at cars from their youth in the future will exclaim "Wow, look at that Toyota, remember what great gas mileage we got?"

That depends on how much time they were spending on odd numbered days in 1974 waiting in line for their 8 gallon allotment!

When I was a teenager in the 1970s there was a Burger King across the street from a large shopping center (the same shopping center that's pictured in the post card image I posted on the "4-door cars" thread). We spent our time hanging out in one lot until security chased us out and we had to go to the other. It just cost too much money to run any car all night, even if they happened not to be rationing gas at the time.

I have heard people say exactly that sentence about antique Toyotas, Datsuns, Fiats, Renaults, and (especially) VWs. I have no doubt that people of my age say the same things when they see antique Vegas, Subarus, Dodge Colts, Hondas, etc. Being a collector of European cars, I'm probably exposed to that kind of situations more than most, but believe me--it does happen.

[john2dameron]

The reason it is impossible to identify a collectible car is because people can't agree on what a car should be. Personally, I see no satisfaction in owning an econobox with a 3-foot long hood and a 3- or 4-cylinder engine mounted sideways at the front of the car. Cars of the 30's and 40's and 50's had personalities. Very few new cars do. There are kids growing up today that in 20 years will not be able to remember who made that strange looking cramped up car that their father drove. Now everyone is so afraid that their product will not sell that they are stamping out thousands of crackerboxes that look just like the competition's crackerboxes. When the PT Cruisers came on the market people started buying them and to convince others to share their misery, started PT Cruiser clubs. I remember going to a car show in Roanoke, VA and there was a row of about 17 Cruisers. Why? Today I saw something more inane yet. There was an ugly little car parked on the side of the street and in the rear window was a large decal that stated, "www.element.com." My dad used to tell me in the late '50's-early 60's that he would not buy anything with more than six cylinders because they used too much gas and that he would not buy anything built after WWII because the metal in them was too thin. Eventually he broke down and bought a '41 Ford pickup with the detested V-8. I don't know how much mileage he got with it but it sure did run good. Then he bought a '49 Chevrolet Fleetline 4-door with his beloved six cylinder engine and one of the first outings he made with it, halfway into a 165 mile trip at his usual 45 mph it threw a rod. Along about the same time my first and last six cylinder Chevy also threw a rod. I haven't cared for six cylinder Chevrolets since. As a matter of fact after many, many more problems with them, I don't care for Chevrolets though many people swear by them. Oh well, what's the value of an opinion. Everyone has at least one and seldom do we find anyone with a better opinion than our own. LOL

[LINC400]

That depends on how much time they were spending on odd numbered days in 1974 waiting in line for their 8 gallon allotment!

When I was a teenager in the 1970s there was a Burger King across the street from a large shopping center (the same shopping center that's pictured in the post card image I posted on the "4-door cars" thread). We spent our time hanging out in one lot until security chased us out and we had to go to the other. It just cost too much money to run any car all night, even if they happened not to be rationing gas at the time.

I have heard people say exactly that sentence about antique Toyotas, Datsuns, Fiats, Renaults, and (especially) VWs. I have no doubt that people of my age say the same things when they see antique Vegas, Subarus, Dodge Colts, Hondas, etc. Being a collector of European cars, I'm probably exposed to that kind of situations more than most, but believe me--it does happen.

Dave, why is it that only redeeming quality you can find for both new and antique cars is gas mileage? I have had my car at plenty of car shows. It has gotten both compliments and stupid comments. But no one has ever commented about remember waiting in line for gas? And I don't ever remember my parents waiting in line for gas here in Chicago in the 1970's, although I have seen newsreels of that on the east and west coast.

I just got back from the auto show. Even though I have very little interest in new cars, I always like to see the concept cars and new models. There were almost no concept cars (yes the economy, blah, blah) and the Challenger and Camaro, 2 cars that I was excited about, lost all their appeal when I sat in them. I cannot believe anything can be designed and sold with such lousy visability. And such cheap plastic interiors for cars with price tags approaching $40,000. Both of these were retro-styled based on the 1969-70 versions. Yet neither of the originals had these cramped interiors or lousy visability. I also sat in several new 4 doors that have been getting rave reviews. The dashes and consoles are so huge that I felt cramped for space. And I am not a big guy. Opening the glove compartment on almost all of them resulted in my knees getting banged. And they all have lousy visability. And everyone was hyping gas mileage on cars that were bland, cramped, had lousy visability, and didn't look much different from one company to the next. Sitting in the middle of it all was a museum display including a 1959 Cadillac convert and 1953 Packard Caribbean. Both cars looked so cool, had such spacious and stylish interiors with no gray plastic, zero visabilty problems, cool styling, etc. Their gas mileage was the furthest thing from my mind. I would gladly pay triple the amount for gas if they could make something that approached anywhere near their style, spaciousness, and interior quality now. And it was a huge relief to go home in my 1994 Buick with reasonable size dash and console, good visability, and no gray plastic after sitting in all those cramped blandmobiles.

Edited February 16, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Sweepspear]

Dave, why is it that only redeeming quality you can find for both new and antique cars is gas mileage? I have had my car at plenty of car shows. It has gotten both compliments and stupid comments. But no one has ever commented about remember waiting in line for gas? And I don't ever remember my parents waiting in line for gas here in Chicago in the 1970's, although I have seen newsreels of that on the east and west coast.

During the gas shortage of 1979 I was 18, and remember very well waiting in line to get gas. You were often limited to a just few gallons. This was in the Minneapolis area.

When people see my 1970 Riviera, I often get comments on how it must get horrible mileage, and drink gas.

People seem to be under the impression that all big cars from that era got less than 10 mpg.

P.S., I like your Mark IV!

[Dandy Dave]

During the gas shortage of 1979 I was 18, and remember very well waiting in line to get gas. You were often limited to a just few gallons. This was in the Minneapolis area.

When people see my 1970 Riviera, I often get comments on how it must get horrible mileage, and drink gas.

People seem to be under the impression that all big cars from that era got less than 10 mpg.

P.S., I like your Mark IV!

Funny thing back then.... The only station that was not rationing, was the local Getty station. We also had an Exxon, and a Gulf station in the area. A good friend of mine use to come up here from Banksville NY to get gas for his excavating business. All the other stations had rationing. I'm not sure if this was a national thing, or a local thing with the supplier. I'll have to ask the owner sometime. It is no longer a gas station, or garage, but the owner is here in the warm months. Dandy Dave!

[LINC400]

During the gas shortage of 1979 I was 18, and remember very well waiting in line to get gas. You were often limited to a just few gallons. This was in the Minneapolis area.

When people see my 1970 Riviera, I often get comments on how it must get horrible mileage, and drink gas.

People seem to be under the impression that all big cars from that era got less than 10 mpg.

P.S., I like your Mark IV!

There will always be people that have to comment on the gas mileage of a pre-1979 full size car. Either they get into their Honda feeling superior to a car that probably gets driven less in a year than they do in their Honda for a few weeks, or they get into their SUV not believing that it gets the same or worse mileage than the car.

As far as the gas lines, I was just a kid, but don't ever remember sitting in line for gas with our big 1974 V-8. Maybe we were just lucky in the Chicago area. But in any case, since that has not happened for 30 years, I fail to see how that has any bearing on antique or new cars now.

I am not opposed to good gas mileage, but in order to get it I have to give up everything I want in a car, size, style, power, interior room, etc. So I would rather pay more for gas and drive what I want instead of hating the car I have to commute in every day. What I think is pathetic is that for all the talk of improved gas mileage, there is very little improvement. Dave can make fun of a Metropolitan's back seat, but in another post he was saying how early 1970's Datsuns got 40 mpg. They have rear doors and back seats. So 40 years later with huge batteries and complicated technology he has a car that gets 5 mpg better? Not much of an improvement for 40 years. Our 2006 Monte Carlo weighs 3,000 lbs. has a 5.3 liter V-8 with V-4 to V-8 technology and gets 2 mpg better than the 5,000 lb. 7.5 liter V-8 powered 1976 Lincoln where gas was not a concern. I have to say I'm not impressed. Even at the auto show the Buick Enclave with 3.6 liter V-6 is rated at 16 mpg city. That is worse than my 1994 3.8 liter gets. For all the hype they are doing about gas mileage, I see very little improvement. The higher mileage is mostly from downsizing, reducing weight, and using smaller engines. Not any actual improvements that allows a larger powerful car to get better mileage.

P.S. Thanks, I think the '70 Riviera is interesting, the only one with fender skirts and generally forgotten between the ones before and after.

[Dave@Moon]

Dave can make fun of a Metropolitan's back seat, but in another post he was saying how early 1970's Datsuns got 40 mpg. They have rear doors and back seats. So 40 years later with huge batteries and complicated technology he has a car that gets 5 mpg better? Not much of an improvement for 40 years.

You can cherry-pick some facts and ignore others into any kind of conclusion you want. Among those in just this post:

My Datsun 210 got 40 mpg on the highway. Around town it would get 29-30 mpg. A Prius gets 45-50 mpg around town.

A Datsun 210 is tiny, with about 75 cubic feet of interior space (same as a new Mini) and a 6 or 7 cubic foot trunk. A Prius has 96 cubic foot interior (same as new Chevy Malibu or older Taurus) and a 16 cubic foot trunk.

A 1300 cc Datsun 210 might do a 0-60 mph time of 20 seconds, 2-3 seconds better than the B210 it replaced. A Prius is a true 8 second car. I drag raced the very first one I ever saw in 2003 with my brand new 3.3 L V6 Nissan truck. It blew me away.

My previous antique car was a big block Buick. I kept it for 13 years and put 14,000 miles on it.

Oh yeah, there's one other thing:

The EPA fuel mileage estimate for the 1975 Lincoln Mark IV was 9 mpg city, 13 mpg highway. Your results may vary! :rolleyes: See link: HERE

Edited February 17, 2010 by Rawja
fixed link (see edit history)

[LINC400]

You can cherry-pick some facts and ignore others into any kind of conclusion you want. Among those in just this post:

My Datsun 210 got 40 mpg on the highway. Around town it would get 29-30 mpg. A Prius gets 45-50 mpg around town.

A Datsun 210 is tiny, with about 75 cubic feet of interior space (same as a new Mini) and a 6 or 7 cubic foot trunk. A Prius has 96 cubic foot interior (same as new Chevy Malibu or older Taurus) and a 16 cubic foot trunk.

A 1300 cc Datsun 210 might do a 0-60 mph time of 20 seconds, 2-3 seconds better than the B210 it replaced. A Prius is a true 8 second car. I drag raced the very first one I ever saw in 2003 with my brand new 3.3 L V6 Nissan truck. It blew me away.

My previous antique car was a big block Buick. I kept it for 13 years and put 14,000 miles on it.

Oh yeah, there's one other thing:

The EPA fuel mileage estimate for the 1975 Lincoln Mark IV was 9 mpg city, 13 mpg highway. Your results may vary!

I am very tired of hearing about how the Prius is the most wonderful car in the world in almost every topic you reply to. If you like it, fine, but quit pushing it on others. I don't care how much of a gain in interior, trunk space or acceleration it has over a Datsun. It still has nowhere near the space, acceleration, or style of a 1950's - 1970's luxury car. And unless you go to the extreme of a Prius, which I'm not willing to do, there still has not been a significant advance in gas mileage. My 1988 Town Car got 20 mpg city. Over 20 years later they should be able to offer something of the same size and power that gets at least 30 mpg. But they do not. And the 2006 Chevy Monte Carlo and 2010 Enclave are certainly still not impressive.

Some people blow money on designer clothes. You can buy clothes at Walmart for $10 or less. Some people dine out at expensive restaurants or buy expensive wine. You can eat Ramen noodles at home and drink wine that costs $3 a bottle or tap water for free. Some people do drugs or smoke cigarettes. I spend zero on that. So if I want to blow my spare cash on a car that gets 11-16 mpg (not 9-13 as your chart claims), why do I have to hear about the gas mileage a Prius gets? No one harps that you have to eat Ramen noodles or shop at Walmart for clothes because it is cheaper. And I enjoy driving my Buick as well. I would not enjoy driving a Prius or other econobox everyday. I get far more pleasure in driving my Mark IV than any savings in gas an econobox would give me. It is worth it to me to pay more for gas in order to not hate the car I am driving and making huge payments on. I'd rather put that money towards paying off my mortgage early instead of making payments on a Prius or other new car. A far better investment than any new car, even if it gets 100 mpg.

And since we are talking about antique cars, I have seen trophies for best prewar, postwar, best for a given decade, best paint, best original, best custom, best stock restoration, even longest distance driven. However, at no car show that I have ever been to has there been a trophy for best gas mileage. So apparently, this must not be a big priority for most car collectors. Also, if you look at the most collectible or desired antique cars, Duesenbergs, V-12 or V-16 prewar Classics, Ferraris, 1959 Cadillacs, 1957 Chevys, Mustangs, Chevelle SS, 'Cudas, any muscle car, none of them are coveted for their gas mileage. In fact fuel efficient cars are usually among the least collectible and valuable cars for any given decade. Probably one of the few exceptions would be an Amphicar, and that is because it is unique, different, and goes in water. Not because it gets good gas mileage.

Edited February 17, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

There will always be people that have to comment on the gas mileage of a pre-1979 full size car. Either they get into their Honda feeling superior to a car that probably gets driven less in a year than they do in their Honda for a few weeks, or they get into their SUV not believing that it gets the same or worse mileage than the car.

As far as the gas lines, I was just a kid, but don't ever remember sitting in line for gas with our big 1974 V-8. Maybe we were just lucky in the Chicago area. But in any case, since that has not happened for 30 years, I fail to see how that has any bearing on antique or new cars now.

I am not opposed to good gas mileage, but in order to get it I have to give up everything I want in a car, size, style, power, interior room, etc. So I would rather pay more for gas and drive what I want instead of hating the car I have to commute in every day. What I think is pathetic is that for all the talk of improved gas mileage, there is very little improvement. Dave can make fun of a Metropolitan's back seat, but in another post he was saying how early 1970's Datsuns got 40 mpg. They have rear doors and back seats. So 40 years later with huge batteries and complicated technology he has a car that gets 5 mpg better? Not much of an improvement for 40 years. Our 2006 Monte Carlo weighs 3,000 lbs. has a 5.3 liter V-8 with V-4 to V-8 technology and gets 2 mpg better than the 5,000 lb. 7.5 liter V-8 powered 1976 Lincoln where gas was not a concern. I have to say I'm not impressed. Even at the auto show the Buick Enclave with 3.6 liter V-6 is rated at 16 mpg city. That is worse than my 1994 3.8 liter gets. For all the hype they are doing about gas mileage, I see very little improvement. The higher mileage is mostly from downsizing, reducing weight, and using smaller engines. Not any actual improvements that allows a larger powerful car to get better mileage.

P.S. Thanks, I think the '70 Riviera is interesting, the only one with fender skirts and generally forgotten between the ones before and after.

Just a few comments here, not expecting to change anyone's mind, but to offer some more fodder...

I'm (presently) 42, and I certainly do remember gas rationing and lines back during the "gas crisis", around 1974...

We lived in Maryland, just outside the Baltimore Beltway, and I can remember sitting in lines as Mom waited to put gas in our 1970 Ambassador SST ( 2 dr HT). At that time, MD had a rationing system that went by the license plate number: plates ending in even numbers could buy gas on an even numbered day, odd plate on an odd numbered day.

I also remember stations with big, crudely lettered signs that said "no gas".

It really did happen.

As for gas mileage, some land yachts are better than others... my Dad commuted back and forth to his work in Washington DC, about 90 miles a day ( in those days, he drove the Balto-Wash Parkway).

In the early 1960's, he had a '53 Packard ( the big one), that he bought from Ballenger Buick in Laurel, MD, for $25, and rebuilt the engine with a kit from

Montgomery Ward. Dad complained then and still comments now about "what a gas-hog that Packard was!".

By the same token, one of his very good friends from work, was responsible for maintaining the emergency lighting plants on Capitol Hill; he commuted from Martinsburg, WV every day, and swore by his early to mid '70s Continentals...

Dad eventually gravitated toward smaller cars, including an Anglia, '66 VW Bug, Pinto Wagon ( that delivered over 200,000 miles of sevice), and other more thrifty cars. He always seemed to express a desire for the big cushy Buicks, Caddys and Lincolns, but that's not what he drove.

Not really trying to change any minds with this post, just offering a "slice of life" from "back in the day".

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

"Not because it gets good gas mileage"

Well, mileage was considered a selling point back in the "good old days"...

How about the Gilmore and Mobilgas Economy runs of the 1930's and '40s ?

Packards and Lincoln Zephyrs used to compete too, along with the Willys Americars and Nash "600"...

Personally, I used to be and still am proud that I used to regularly get 25-28 mpg on the highway with my 200,000-mile 1962 Falcon...