Were All Old New Cars This Bad?

[Guest CaptainGTX]

Last fall I bought a 1953 Dodge Coronet Convertible from the family of the original owners. (I posted a little information on it several months ago.) This car had been in storage since 1965. I am still working with a mechanic (who hasn't had spare time this winter) to get it running.

The owner's family recently located and provided me with a few original documents. Among them was a hand-written list of problems with the car apparently from when it was new or relatively new. I thought it might be interesting to provide that list in this forum, and wonder if it was typical for the era to experience so many problems.

I remember taking delivery of my first new car, a 1969 Plymouth Sport Satellite. The first few days the glovebox and console locks fell apart and I found it needed a wheel re-alignment. Seems like there were a few other minor problems as well. I thought that was bad until I saw this list. I've been spoiled the past 25 years by European and Japanese cars, and would be deeply upset to have any of these problems on a modern-day car. There is no doubt that they don't build cars like they used to - we can all be glad of that.

Here's the list, complete with misspellings & cross-outs:

Heater that was originally in car was removed for another car and another heater was placed in this car after purchase resulting in

1. Scratches by fan knob(?) on dash board

2. Vent lever was burred with pliers (snags stockings)

3. Temp. control rattles and squeaks when in closed position.

Radio Push button in far right sticks after use sometimes.

Horn Ring Scratched and marred chrome in assembly

Windshield Leaks

Right corner

Molding bracket not painted completely

Windshield Washer

<S>Left squirter squirts up and over windshield</S>

<S>Upholstery where top lies is cut upon assembly.ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p></S>

Canvas Top Tearing where doors close on it even thought shrunk once.

<S>Three fasteners on top of windshield loose.<O:p></O:p></S>

Plastic window warped on bottom.

Left Door<O:p></O:p>

Door sash spotted with grease before painted giving a rough finish.

Windshield vent whistles when closed + 40 mph.

Ash Tray Get screwdriver in ash tray.

Chrome peeling off of ash tray.

Right Door handle rubs support on top and sticks open.

Floor mat not laid properly, wrinkled and wadded.

Front seat totters on support in back position.

Chrome on L rear fender loose.

Space between rear tires and fenders not the same on both sides. L rear wheel rubs sometimes.

Engine squeals when idling while hot. Front oil seal treated with penetrating oil once. It helps but came back again.

Chrome on hood where closes R side loose.

Right rear window inoperative.

Right Window Saches(?) not fastened securely to frame of car.

Weather stripping insulation on most all windows not installed properly.

Oil sticks practically impossible to read properly.

Underseal smeared on front bumper.

Oil leaking around overhead valve housings.

Wheel alignment.

[poci1957]

WOW that is quite a list, we are spoiled now. That is one rare convertible too, congratulations on that find, Todd C

[Ron Green]

If buying a new Citicar in the day and that was all that was on the list, you would consider it to be one in excellent condition.

[Guest CaptainGTX]

Yeah. I forgot to mention it has the first year Dodge hemi, the 241 cu in Red Ram. I also has the Gyro-Torque semi-automatic transmission & a bunch of other options. It was a pretty loaded car, lacking only wire wheels & a continental kit. Everything is original - in fact, I just replaced the original shocks - with 102k miles, needless to say they were shot. It doesn't appear the engine was ever opened up, but it was parked 44 years ago supposedly with a transmission problem. No other 53 Dodge convertibles show up in the 10,000+ or - cars represented in the national WPC Club, so it has to be rare.

[F&J]

Some of the stuff on the list sounds pretty A--- retentive.

At some car dealers the sevice writer puts a little code at the top of the repair order for the shop forman to see. The code for this owner would be "B B" ...you can figure out what that means.

...if the car was such a junk, why'd they keep it so long...

[Guest CaptainGTX]

Hey, the guy was a nuclear physicist, according to his obituary. Draw your own conclusion, but I'd probably have bitched too if my new car had some of those problems. Now I need to figure out which ones were fixed.

[Bhigdog]

Hate to say it guys but the cars of the 50's were basicly poorly designed, shodily constructed, and were rusting away while still in the show room. Then the Japenese happened..........Bob

[Guest windjamer]

First I think the car was made on mon. or Fri. and the dealer that sold it was named Jessy.

[Clipper47]

I worked at Chrysler Canada in 1964. Quality was not a big issue. Cars built on Mondays and Fridays were often the worst as many workers called in sick with what we Canadians called "Blue Flu" named after the popular beer brand Molson's Blue. Quite often, usually on a Monday or Friday I was taken from my usual job and given some job like installing seat covers with a hog ring pliers or spot welding door panels with only a few minutes of basic instruction and then left to my own devices. My usual job was cadmium plating and I tried to do a consistently high quality plating job BUT when the foreman told me the assembly line needed parts "NOW" the parts were just given a dusting barely covering the bare metal and then off they went for assembly. The colour of the cadmium varied depending on the amount of time the parts were immersed in the plating solutions. My brother worked on the end of the assembly line on "trim repair" which was basically nipping and tucking any loose bits of metal or cloth that was obvious so the customer would not see it. I have to laugh when I hear some "expert" at a car show pontificating on what is the "correct" cadmium colour on an alternator bracket or how many hog rings should be holding down a seat cover on a 1960's North American car.

The best built cars were the ones built for the employees. During lunch breaks an employee would drop by and say "My car is being made today so do a few extra spot welds etc. and mark a panel with a piece of chalk . If I was spot welding say a door panel to a door skin and I saw a chalk check mark or some other symbol I would give that panel extra spot welds. The worker would quite often goof off and move about the plant marking panels. Assembly line workers would use only checked marked parts when assembling a co-worker's car as it came down the line. All the same these were cars assembled by men with hand tools not some robot that no human will ever be able to fix or repair. That alone gives them a charm and character no modern mass produced cookie cutter car can ever have.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Clipper47 (see edit history)

[old car fan]

I almost agree with big dog.The cars of the 50,s were great.show me a car today that would last as long.A new toy,,ota scrap, truck,the frame is rusting off

Edited March 12, 2010 by old car fan (see edit history)

[old car fan]

Also got a 57 caddi that has more steel in the doors alone than any new car even toyota frames

[Guest Skyking]

Now I need to figure out which ones were fixed.

It's too bad Chrysler didn't have it's "Lifetime Warranty" back then.

You'd get everything fixed free!

[Guest Skyking]

Hate to say it guys but the cars of the 50's were basicly poorly designed, shodily constructed, and were rusting away while still in the show room. .Bob

If they were as bad as you say, we wouldn't be on this forum.

[RPrice]

Not all cars of the '50s were so shoddy. Chrysler Corp. started having real workmanship problems around the mid-'50s. They had some of the most beautifully styled cars in the business,

but their cars weren't built well. It's no surprise that the Japanese cars took off in sales. People got tired of having to put up with sub-par workmanship.

Rog

[jazzer3]

I have a friend that could compile a list longer than that on most any car built anywhere.

Some car owners see things as they are and live with them, other car owners drive their mechanics crazy.

Jay

[Bhigdog]

If they were as bad as you say, we wouldn't be on this forum.

I'm not saying they weren't beautiful or artfully designed or that I don't love em. What I am saying is that they were shodily designed and built. One of the most popular themes of this forum is the heroic measures that members make to resurrect some rusted away hulk.

Rockers and quarter panels were welded closed with NO paint on the inside and no way to get mud and water out. Buick drained the rear windows into the quarters. There was no paint on interior panels other than a thin primer. Those babies were rusting away before they left the dealers and the factory knew it.

The steel was low quality as evidenced by the way rust would attack it in strange patterns. Bolts were rammed home irregardless if the threads were crossed or they were just left out if the line was moving too fast. Pot metal, the curse of mankind, was extensively used, and the plating was just thick enough to get it off the dealer lot.

One only has to look at the body "adjusting" instructions in a shop manual to see what I mean. Chrysler reccomends using a bumper jack between the fire wall and front fender to "correct" the hood fit. If that's not enough then bend the hood braces. The trunk fit is to be "corrected" by bending it over a big mallet head. Buick just plainly says the body margins will never be right so just adjust to the "best overall fit".

Sorry but what is, is...............Bob

[Rusty_OToole]

Who was the original owner, Felix Unger?

Captain GTX have you looked for these scratches and flaws? How bad are they?

Quality control in the fifties was not what it is today. It is rather shocking to read some of the complaints in Tom McCahill's old columns in Mechanix Illustrated.

1953 was not even the worst year. The problems were just beginning at that time. The worst years were probably 1957-1960.

Most of the complaints on that list are things the average customer would have overlooked. I have heard of far worse lemons.

[Guest billybird]

Yes we have better built and more dependable vehicles than we used to. However, we are suffering in almost every other product being forced upon us from overseas, mainly China. What a trade off!

[john2dameron]

I owned a couple of GM cars built in the '50's. Neither one was a prime example of quality. I then owned two Ford convertibles built in the '60's; both were great cars. My next car was a '65 Cadillac convertible. It was a good car but not great. It was delivered with the right rear quarter panel filled up with water. I found the stopped up drains and cleaned them out with a screwdriver. One rear window motor went out soon after I got the car. Then it started using oil; lots of oil. The dealer tried a couple of remedies but nothing worked. Then someone told me it probably was the fuel pump diaphragm. I bought a fuel pump for about $8.00 and installed it myself. The trunk would get wet and musty smelling. Found out a weld seam between the top and the trunk lid was cracked and letting water run into the trunk. Had it fixed but it didn't last long.

Traded that car for a new '68 Chrysler 300 convertible. The engine would die when I'd try to pull away from a stop light. Dealer could not fix it. Finally a tuneup shop did. The starter solenoid went bad early in the life of the car. The power steering hose was routed right under the exhaust manifold. Yeah, it cooked and ruptured leaving me stranded one night. The dealer gave me the replacement hose and a can of power steering fluid and I replaced the hose and wrapped it in a bicycle tire. That took care of that. The motor on the left rear window quit with about 5,000 miles on the car. The window frame was actually broken and was binding the window causing the motor to burn out. When people would ride in the back seat, I'd find the rear seat armrests lying in the floor where they fell off. Chrysler used break-away window cranks on their manual windows and they would break off at the drop of a pin. Were cars made in the '50's of high quality? Not that I remember. Were the ones made in the '60's better? Probably, if you did not include Chrysler products. Oh yeah, I also bought a new '65 Chev Impala SS convertible. Instead of being a Super Sport it was a Super Dog. Enough said about that.

Edited March 12, 2010 by john2dameron
addition (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Hate to say it guys but the cars of the 50's were basicly poorly designed, shodily constructed, and were rusting away while still in the show room. Then the Japenese happened..........Bob

In 1968 my dad bought his first new car, an early 1969 model AMC Ambassador. I was 10.

Riding in the back seat I asked him why there was already rust on the metal part of little fuzzy things that kept the back windows from rattling. He was a little non-plussed.:mad:

We were bringing it home from the dealer at the time. We'd picked it up about 5 minutes before I asked the question. It had been ordered by my dad, and had come off the train the day before (the train yard was about 10 blocks from the dealer). It had been assembled about 2 weeks ago at the time.

Yup, they just don't make 'em like they use ta'!

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Yep, F&J, I agree. And to follow up on Bhigdogs comment, how many of you are restoring a Toyota or Datsun from that era??

Neat Dodge, by the way. Congrats.

Ben

[Bhigdog]

The point of my observation re cars of the 50's-60's is that they were substandard and the factory knew it. The point of mentioning Japanese cars isn't that they were perfect or worthy of restoration but that the magic of REAL COMPITITION was now happening. B.J. (before Japan) American mass market cars did compete with each other for customers, but only up to a point. Since every factory had minimal quality standards the playing field was level and there was no incentive to improve. Then the Japanese happened............Bob

Edited March 12, 2010 by Rawja
JAPANESE (see edit history)

[Larry Schramm]

One other item that I remember was that sales persons encourged customers to look for anything wrong with the vehicle. It was a game/challenge to try to find even the most small imperfection. That does not mean that there were not common deficiencies as there were. Some places even had note pads printed up and given to the customer who was told "take this and see what you can find wrong and bring it back so we can fix it" Rmember then the warranty was 3 months or 3,000 miles ( and then to 12 mo/12,000 miles) and a lot of this was done to encourage the customer to keep coming back to the dealership for service work. It was a product of the times.

[Guest CaptainGTX]

Included among the papers on the Dodge was an Owner Service Certificate issued by the dealership, Standard Motor Co. in Denver. This was a 90 day or 4,000 mile new car warranty and included a coupon for 6 chassis lubrications during the first 12 months of ownership (all were used). The Owners Manual (also included) called for chassis lubrications every 1,000 miles and oil changes every 5,000 miles. I find it hard to believe that a manufacturer could actually expect an owner to get a lube job that often or that a car would need it that often. I assume this was mostly a ploy to get the car back to the dealership so they could sell "additional" services.

[Bhigdog]

My guess is the grease was required. The front suspensions were mostly king pins and screw type pivot pin and bushing. In other words there was no grease resoviour (sp) like in a ball joint. The only grease in the joints were the film that was pushed in by the grease gun. It wouldn't take long to wear dry.

Besides the low interval there were usually over 20 fittings..........Bob

[Rusty_OToole]

1000 mile lube jobs were standard practice from the start of the auto era up to 1962. Steering tie rods and suspension joints were not sealed and the grease would leak out that fast. Dirt and water could work in and ruin your parts if they were not lubed regularly. The grease gun pushed out the old dirty grease and pushed in fresh grease.

Ford was the first to use permanently sealed joints. They used a special grease and only had to be lubed every 30000 miles. They didn't even have grease fittings, they had plugs that had to be unscrewed and replaced at each grease job. This was first done on the 62 models.

A lot of what we are talking about here, is the normal progress to be expected of 50 years of engineering and development. But part of it is the result of competition from foreign car makers.

Even in the 50s, one of VW's selling points was the high quality and superior fit and finish of their cars. Partly because German customers are picky, but partly because they made the same simple car year after year and had the chance to get everything right.

This made a big impression on people who were disappointed in the poor quality of their last purchase.

American Motors made a big thing of their quality too. They wanted to give buyers a clear choice, and good reasons for buying their "sensible spectaculars" in place of the "dinosaurs of the driveway" offered by other makers.

The 5000 mile oil change interval is a bit of a surprise. As recently as 1951 they were recommending oil changes every 1000 miles in winter and every 2000 miles in summer.

Are you sure that isn't the oil filter? In my 51 Plymouth - Dodge - DeSoto owner's manual they recommend changing the (bypass) filter every 5000 miles, oil every 1000 miles (winter) or 2000 miles (summer).

You must remember that people didn't drive as much as they do today. The average mileage at that time was about 5000 or 6000 per year so we are talking about servicing the car every couple of months.

And yes, this did add up to a lot of service and repair work. This is one reason there are about 1/10 the garages around today as there were then. The other is that today's cars get about twice the gas mileage.

I know when I was a kid in the fifties there were gas stations at every intersection, often more than one. And every gas station did repair work.

Old timers will remember the service stations in their area, that are now torn down or turned into coffee shops, convenience stores or dog grooming parlors.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest CaptainGTX]

Rusty, Recommended servicing per the Owners Manual is as follows:

Every 1,000 miles - Check fluid level master cylinder, transmission, rear axle, steering gear. Inspect air cleaner. Lubricate chassis, hand brake linkage, water pump, shift linkage, brake and clutch pedals.

Every 5,000 miles - Change oil. Replace oil filter element. Clean and re-oil filler pipe air cleaner and carburetor air cleaner. Re-gap spark plugs. Adjust clutch and brake pedals if required.

Every 10,000 miles - Lubricate distributor, generator, gearshift rod ends, speedometer cable, windshield wiper pivots, rear springs with metal covers. Clean and repack front wheel bearings. Tighten body chassis bolts. Check wheel alignment.

Every 20,000 miles - Check headlights and aim. Drain and refill differential and transmission. Clean and repack U-joints, front and rear wheel bearings.

The manual also says, for V8 engines with Gyro-Torque Drive (which mine has), to change oil seasonally or twice a year (takes 13 quarts per change). Also to tune the engine every 6,000 miles. And it says in dusty operations, air cleaners should be cleaned more often - once a day under exceptionally severe operating conditions. So I guess regarding oil changes, if it wasn't a Gyro-Torque, the recommended oil change interval was 5,000 miles.

I remember driving my 53 Coronet back in the 60's in some extremely dusty conditions (growing up on a Kansas farm). I didn't put that many miles on it, so it probably got an oil & filter change once a year. It was a dependable car.

[earl e rizer]

The automobile factory/assembly line was less than 50 years old by 1955. Now it's 100 % older and more perfected. That along with much stiffer competition is why we have better cars now. The North American cars were always cheaper but faster and more dependable than most European cars at that time and I never noticed how poor that stuff fit until I read Tom Mcahill or got to ride in a neighbour's British/German car. By the early 70's when I was buying well used cars, Japanese or Euro cars were too rusty & slow to even get a 2nd glance. But it did tick me off trying to close the driver's door on every Chrysler product of the time or patching holes in 4-5 year old Fords. Changing a rusty fender on a GMC opened my eyes when I found cross threaded & missing bolts.

[Guest mystarcollectorcar.com]

That's quite a list-I'm guessing this owner was a dealer's nightmare with every car because of that attention to detail.Clearly he wasn't blinded by the purchase of this great-looking car and applied his scientific analysis to everything he did.

[Guest kaycee]

In around 1958 I owned a '55 Buick Century and worked at a Rambler dealership. One of the percs of the job was being able to use the shop on Saturday afternoons after the mechanics had left. That car got a grease job and oil change every 1000 miles and filter every 2000. Later, I always changed oil & filter at about 3000 mile intervals on all my cars and greased them every second time, with wheel bearings at about every 10,000 miles. Tune ups were done about every 10,000 miles with points, plugs, and filters, and brakes checked once a year. Of course then, as was mentioned earlier, you had about twenty grease fittings unlike the four or five you have today, and tune ups today are up to 100,000 mile intervals.

My cars in the fifties and sixties were good cars (all Buicks) even body wise, but they got their share of maintenance and a lot of washing and waxing especially in Illinois where it required it, and my dads Buicks and later a couple of Chryslers were also good cars other than the rust problems he experienced over the headlights on his '58 Chrysler Windsor and a broken torsion bar in about eight years of use.

I still miss ? (well sort of miss) getting under the old cars for oil changes and grease jobs and checking things out, but I'm thankful for just limiting that work on my twenties cars now and not quite as often, thank God.

kaycee

[junkyardjeff]

I found all the dealer reciepts from my 55 Ford convertible that my dad bought new and he had a little list of things that needed attention,must of had them repaired as it was a daily driver untill 68 when a wagon replaced it.

[rick60]

When I was an Olds mechanic I was dispatched a repair order that was thirteen pages of rattles and squeaks. I road tested the car and it felt like it had no springs. The tires were inflated to 90psi. i let some air out of the tires and it was perfect. the customer was informed of the correct tire pressure. I never saw the car again. It is not always the car's fault. I also worked on Hondas. I did the same thing at Honda. I fixed broken cars!

[TimCole]

I remember the 50's thru 70's as times when you couldn't buy a good car. Period. The VW type 111 was about the best and it was a clunker. A brand new 62 Belair six didn't drive much different than a 37 except that the motor was much sturdier.

In those days when you got behind the wheel of a well kept 1930's Packard it ran, rode, steered, and stopped better than a lot of brand new cars. And they didn't rust out in a year either. So they called 'em classics.

Today's OBDII cars are just so much better that comparisons don't make any sense.

The little Willys was an exception which had a 100,000 mile guarantee.

I don't own any old cars anymore because only a screwball would say they are better than a new car.

[junkyardjeff]

Todays OBD II cars are great untill the warranty runs out and then they get expensive to repair with all the computers and sensors that can go wrong,if the fuel pump goes out on a modern car its about 700.00 to have repaired and I can still get one for my 60s car for under 30 dollars. I will take a old car over a new one any day and you cant pay me enough to buy a OBD II car,the newest in the fleet is a 89 crown vic and I use a 65 galaxie 4 door for a summer time daily driver and I am glad to be a screwball.

[Guest]

I don't own any old cars anymore because only a screwball would say they are better than a new car.

Gee Tim, If you don't own or like old cars why are you on a Antique Automobile Club site?? Are you trying to make us feel like we made bad choices for liking old cars?

Don

[61-63]

Well my wife and I bought brand new a '64 1/2 Mustang, '67 Dodge Coronet, '69 Pontiac Catalina, '73 Pontiac Catalina, '73 Ford F150 (or was it 100?), and then of course more since then but less frequently as we aged and got a smidgen wiser. Of the batch I listed only the '73 Catalina was what I would call a lemon; all of the others were great cars and were traded only because we were young and the husband always had ants in his pants for a new car.

I love those old cars and the age they represent. The new cars are without doubt better cars but have no character at all and look like either jelly beans or half smashed shoe boxes. NO modern car has an interior that can even approach the style of the one in my '63 Catalina with the Ventura interior.

Just my opinion.

[LINC400]

I fail to understand why people come on to this site to bash antique cars. I do not see how new cars are so much more reliable than cars from the 1950's -1970's. If they were so bad, how come there are so many still around?

I had a '78 and '79 Lincoln Mark V for daily drivers from 1991-2004. They were by far the oldest cars out of anyone at my work. They were also in for far fewer repairs than everyone else's cars at my work. Everybody made the excuse that their cars were under warranty, so it was ok if they broke frequently because they didn't have to pay for repairs like I did. I told them one repair on my car is probably about the same as their car payment for one month, and I don't have to pay that every month. Two new VW's 2004 and 2006 at work, one needed an new engine, the other a new transmission when both were less than a year old. I don't care if it was repaired under warranty, that doesn't sound like a great car to me. Maybe if you owned a Renault Dauphine or Chevy Vega you did not have a good experience. But one bad model or one lemon does not mean that all new cars are better than all old cars.

Plus most old cars have way more style, and way nicer interiors than anything you can buy today, regardless of what you spend. For example a 1959 Impala has a far more stylish interior than any new Cadillac, Lexus, Mercedes or BMW. Leather seating surfaces in your choice of 2 shades of gray accented with gray plastic is not stylish in my opinion.

[Bhigdog]

I don't think anyone is bashing old cars more like stating a fact. I own and have restored a number of them and the fact is they are not as well engineered or built as almost any "new car". New cars are almost maintenance free. the fits and finishes, are vastly better, the warrantees at least 12 times more liberal (in some cases 33 times) the handling and stopping vastly superior, and the safety features not even close. I will give the older iron a fat edge in styling...........Bob

[Reatta Man]

There are some things to keep in context when comparing new vs. old:

1. Welds: Robotic welds weren't possible until the 1970s. And, studies have shown there is NO WAY some poor guy can stand at a welding machine and get them all right, all the time. He did the best he could in the time the assembly line gave him to do his job.

2. Rustproofing: Archaic back then by today's standards. Some would say it was part of planned obsolesence, but remember that primers and sealers are light years ahead of where they were 50-60 years ago. And, no one expected the cars to be around past 10 years anyway! Remember when a three-year-old car was considered worn out? Nowdays, three-year-old cars are sold with certified warranties that last another 4-7 years and go to 100,000 miles.

3. Steel: I remember when Lee Iaccoca said he was working with steel companies to produce a sheet metal that would last 10 years with no rust in the worst areas of the country. Personally, I thought it couldnt' happen, but hoped he was right. Today, 10-year-old cars with no rust are common.

4. Engines: You gotta be kidding! Four-cylinders that produce well over 200 HP (net, not gross), get 25-35 MPG and last 200,000 miles? Virtually impossible 20-30 years ago. (I know, here come the stories about 'my 40-year old _____ has 300,000 miles on it....) Add to that hybrids, six-cylinders with 300+ HP and accelerate faster than the V-8s of a few years ago....

5. Safety: NOOOOOOOO comparison. Yeah, I bought into the old "lots of steel is better" until I saw this:http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk"] 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel-Air

6. Emissions: Yeah, you may not like OBDII, but just remember the fun days of leaded gas eating away exhaust systems in 12,000 miles, changing points every year, leaking carbs, sticking floats, worn-out valves and rings in 30,000 miles, worn out spark plugs every 10,000 miles and 10 MPG engines. Also, keep in mind that a lawn mower today produces more pollution than a typical new or even five-year-old car.

So, as the song says, "these ARE the good old days....."

Don't get me wrong; I love my old Buicks, but wouldn't compare them to modern cars for dependability, reliability, long life, safey and convenience.

[poci1957]

Yup, comparing the two is apples and oranges, I say lets enjoy both for what they are. Buy the newer everyday car to park outside and drive year round and preserve your old car and appreciate it's attributes on nice weekend drives and shows. Your wife's beige 2010 four door midsize has little style and a plastic interior, but will likely give you over 100,000 miles trouble free as a transportation appliance. The unadorned body trim even makes it easy to keep clean with little effort. Your red 1965 Impala SS has lots of style and flair and will give you a great time on the weekends. Drive it 1000-2000 miles a year and it will be nearly ten years before you will replace your points, plugs and tires and probably need little maintenance in the meantime. A car for each function and life is good! Todd