The good old days - were they so good?

[Guest]

A subject was discussed in another post that I though earned its own thread. It's the subject of "the good old days". I?m of the opinion that they were not as good as many remember. <P><span style="text-decoration: underline"><B>Considering we are all car fans lets compare today?s cars and transportation issues to ?the good old days?.</B></span><P>Here is some information I?ve found searching the net and there sources.<P>?A better measuring stick than price is to think in terms of how much of our labor it takes to buy various things. For instance, a 1908 Ford Model T cost most people about 2 years wages. A 1997 Taurus has an equivalent cost of 8 months. That's only one third as much. Plus, today you get air conditioning, power windows, tinted glass, anti-lock brakes and airbags. A '97 Taurus costs less in effort than a '55 Fairlane. Come to think of it, the cars I've been buying in the last 10 years take longer to develop rust and give more years on the road before they need major work in the shop.? Source: <A HREF="http://my.execpc.com/~shepler/costliving.html" TARGET=_blank>http://my.execpc.com/~shepler/costliving.html</A> <P>??what about gasoline? Surely the oil crisis of the mid 70's and the continuing tensions in the Middle East have made cheap gas a luxury of the past. Not really. Those prices at the pump truly are less than a few years ago. Now get this. You worked 5.4 minutes to buy a gallon of gas in 1997. You worked 6.6 minutes to buy that same gallon in 1970, before the Arab oil embargo and about the time I remember handing quarters to the station attendants.? Source: <A HREF="http://my.execpc.com/~shepler/costliving.html" TARGET=_blank>http://my.execpc.com/~shepler/costliving.html</A> <P>Traffic fatalities are 1/10 of what they were in 1920s and 1/5 of what they were on the 1950?s. Source: <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch13.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch13.pdf</A> <P>Air Quality: ?Efforts by government and industry since 1970 have greatly reduced typical vehicle emissions. In those same years, however, the number of miles we drive has more than doubled. The increase in travel has offset much of the emission control progress. <BR>The net result is a modest reduction in each automotive pollutant except lead, for which aggregate emissions have dropped by more than 95 percent.? Source: <A HREF="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/05-autos.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.epa.gov/otaq/05-autos.htm</A> <P>I agree you that you can?t measure the value of the good old days by looking at just our hobby, but it is surely a great place to start. Love to hear everyone else?s opinions on the subject.<P>Peter<p>[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[1937hd45]

Peter, Can you run a search to see how much people had in savings accounts in 1940-1960, vs. today? I think people had more money in reserve in "the good old days". Back them people used "real" money not "lines of credit". They didn't have half the stuff to spend extra money on in the first place.

[1937hd45]

Question #2: What was the ratio of people in the American workforce vs. the number of lawyers, 1952 vs. 2002?

[Guest]

I remember when the town lawyer drove a used Pontiac he paid $100 for!

[Guest]

"good old days"....my hindquarters...! Just LOOK at my high school "Annual" from Hollywood High School ..and compare the girls with what you see going to high school today...and what they are wearing...(or..to be more correct...ALMOST wearing)...damn..would I ever love to be one of those young bucks in high school today....(probably have one HELL of a wild weekend...and spend the rest of my life in jail....! )<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Ahhh... the good old days....<BR>------<P>Before there were cars, there were horses<P>Often forgotten in the debate over automobiles and the environment is the pollution created by the modes of transportation that cars replaced. Prior to motorized travel, Americans didn't ride bicycles: They rode (or sat in carriages pulled by) horses.<P>Fred L. Smith, a former senior policy analyst for the EPA and now president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, gives this vivid and unpleasant description of the impact horses had on American cities less than one hundred years ago:<P>Cars create pollution. But it's also true that cars may well have dramatically decreased overall pollution. . . . A horse produces approximately 45 pounds of manure each day. In high-density urban environments, massive tonnages accumulated, requiring constant collection and disposal. Flies, dried dung dust, and the smell of urine filled the air, spreading disease and irritating the lungs. On rainy days, one walked through puddles of liquid wastes. Occupational diseases in horse-related industries were common.<P>Smith goes on to report that New York City in the 1890s had to dispose of 15,000 dead horses every year, a huge public health and environmental problem. Often, these rotting corpses were hauled in open-air wagons to the edge of town, where they were dumped into huge kettles and heated over coal fires (without emission controls) until they were "reduced" into grease, later to be sold to the manufacturers of candles and lubricants.<P>The remains of the dead animals that couldn't be sold were dumped, untreated, into the nearest river or lake. Today's automobile looks pretty good by comparison.<P>Source: <A HREF="http://www.heartland.org/earthday96/autos.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.heartland.org/earthday96/autos.htm</A><p>[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Guest Skyking]

THE GOOD OLD DAYS? Why do I find that I'm spending more time in lines now than the good old days. The registers at all stores now are computered, but it seems you can't check out. There is always a problem with the bar codes. You go to a fast food resturant and you have to repeat your order at least 3 times to the attendant and they still get it wrong. The good old days your newspaper was delivered inside your storm door, now I find myself hunting for it somewhere in my yard, most of the time under my sprinklers. Just the other day I had to have a tire mounted....Forget it, I spent more time looking for a garage that had a working tire machine. As far as I'm concerned, the good old days were much easier in most cases, why?, because people had common sense, that's the BIG thing that's lacking today

[Guest rcirilli]

Somethings I thought were great about the good old days: you could leave your convertable top down, with your wallet and keys in the car. You didn't have to worry about who was a stranger or lock your house. If you broke down along the road, when you got back the car was still there and all of the windows were in tact. If you picked up a girl or girlfriend you didn't have to compete for who was going to drive or who had the bigger paycheck. Some things were slower but that was nice. If I needed excitement, trying to get in and out of the house without anyone catching me with cigarettes was always a thrill. I played in a band when playing for gas money was a big deal. Oh ya, just little things at a much slower pace. Oh ya one other thing back then you could actually find a street to drag race on !!

[Dave@Moon]

Is it just me, or does it sound kind of strange to hear someone who has a sprinkler system complain about how inconvienent and difficult the world of today is?

[Dave@Moon]

Peterg,<P>The facts are that the aggregate environmental quality of the earth has been rapidly degrading over time. Many aspects have been improved, some dramatically, as a result of those lousy people we vote for and hire to run the government for us. This can be especially true if you limit you analysis to a small area, like New York's five boroughs. However, basic numbers dictate that the best we can do is slow the process and preserve some areas as best we can.<P>The reason for this is quite simple. If you add up the total number of <I>Homo sapiens</I> that ever lived from the inception of the species to 1920 AD, you will arrive at a number smaller than the total number of people sucking in oxygen today. For this reason, the occupancy of land, use of resources, production of wastes, and any other measure of human impact to the planet all look the same in graph form, a never ending, ever steepening logarithmic increase. Great for the economy, not so great for the pilot whales.<P>(I can't wait for the first person to be so original, witty and wise as to post "screw the whales"!) <P>This is why the people who really know what's going on in thge earth's ecosystem have to constantly fight with paid mouthpieces for economic interests that masquerade as "experts". One of their favorite tactics is to cite absurd situations from the past like 15,000 dead horses being disposed annually in NY. The problem with that is that that disposal had absolutely no impact on the environmental quality of Maine. However, the auto exhaust from NY alone would be easily detectable in Maine, if it wasn't for all the additional impacts in between.<P>The fact of the matter is that the worst envirnomental quality that ever existed was undoubtedly that of 1880's London, and they had the life expectancy to prove it. Between the coal funaces and airborne fecal matter particulates, that's not too hard to see. However, at that time you could be 15 miles out of London and be in near-pristine organic farm fields. <I>Cincinnati</I> is areally much bigger than that today.<P>It's the massive numbers of people producing problematic wastes that cause the problem. Eventually <I>everything</I> you buy or find will be waste material. To see how that impacts the earth, stand outside any K-Mart. Picture everything coming out the door being dumped directly into the stream by your house, because that is essentially what is happening. Now realize that there are tens of thousands of discount department stores like K-Mart accross the country, and that as consumer products go their's are among the most environmentally benign. <P>In many, many, many aspects the past was worse than it is today. But the environment is on the whole is not one of them.<p>[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Guest Skyking]

DAVE MOON, give me a break...........Yes you Idiot! we had sprinkler systems back in the 50's too.......What's wrong with watering your lawn even???

[Guest]

Dave,<BR>Thanks for your comments. I can't argue with you a single bit. I believe you are certianly more versed on this subject than I.<P>Are we better off now than 40 years ago relative to how automobiles impact the environment?<P>Peter<p>[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Guest]

Please, lets keep this posting on track. This is about ?the good old days? relative to cars. Let?s NOT go off on tangents about checkout lines, restaurant service and the number of lawyers in the world.<P>Thanks,<P>Peter

[ply33]

Hey Peter - Isn't trying to keep a discussion thread on topic a little like herding cats?

[Dave@Moon]

Within the confines of a relatively small urban area, we're undoubtedly much better off. Globally, as cars begin to make inroads in areas not the least bit concerned with emissions, we're probably losing ground.<P>But at least I can ride in a car with someone of a different race accross Mississippi with my health far less threatened than it would've been at one time!

[Guest Skyking]

Peterg, you opened this tread with Teen pregnancy rate, graduation rates, safty on the job, etc. I thought this was about more than cars........sorry!

[Guest]

Skyking, your right. Therefore i went back and deleted the "P.S." with those references.<BR>Thanks,<BR>Peter

[Dave@Moon]

Here's a measure:<P>Ford, Honda, Nissan, and Subaru all offer sport coupes today that beat the stock 1964 GTO in 1/4 mile time (but possibly not the Jim Wagners prepared ringers supplied for many magazine comparisons). The difference: they all have engines of 121 cubic inches (2.0 L) and get at least 30 mpg!<P>--------------------------------------<P>Also, it was once pointed out to me that <I>Jiffy Lube</I> and other service chains no longer have a code in their computer systems for a stand-alone lube job. If you go there just to get your front end greased, they have no idea what to charge you. I know of someone in Pittsburgh who has gotten two free front end lubes (at two different places) by asking for them and (once the job was done) having the employees just give up trying to work out a charge for the job! <P>Just don't try to get them to adjust (or find) your points!

[Guest]

screw the damn whales..!

[Guest]

AMEN PFH !!! i'll second that emotion: SCREW the whales.<P>The solution to many of the 'customer service problems " listed above IS RELATED TO THE AUTO INDUSTRY!!!!!<P>Raise the price of gas to about $4/gal and you all WILL find out how quick the social attitude will change.<P>I'm ALL FOR HIGHER GAS PRICES. Maybe then i can get out and enjoy myself with the open road ahead of me and wont have to put up with every minimum wage red neck and soccer mom tieing up the byways in their new car that they will never live to pay for.<P>$4 / gal gas ought to give a warm and cozy feeling to all of the environmental hero's too since LESS people will be out on the road. <P>Pay for what u get?????? Lets try $4/gal and get people off of the raod so the rest of us can enjoy it and all of the things along the side of the road to partake of too.<P>I'm serious in what i say.

[Guest]

Actually you <strong>are</strong> paying several dollars a gallon for your gas. <span style="font-style: italic">Don't believe me?</span> Look at the amount of oil we import per year then look at the amount of our "defense" budget goes to assuring that the oil industry can operate as they please where they please. Divide that out and you will get a couple dollars per gallon. (There is an amazing correlation between where we have troops and where there is oil.) So we are paying a bunch for our oil, only it is going out of our pockets as tax.

[Guest]

YES !!!!!!!!! THATS right Newspaper Reader.<P>AND we have tax dollars going to subsidize the WELFARE state so that 'the poor' can have cheap gas a car to drive to the grocery store with their food stamps. I SEE IT EVERYDAY!!! I dont care if they collect welfare. thats fine. BUT, when they get in my way thats a different story. ONE way or the other we will PAY. The question IS: what are we getting for our money????

[Guest]

...... or not getting for that matter.

[Guest]

Mr. Moon if you feel that way about cars how can you justify your interest in them? Also, the cars of today are more air purification machines than they are polluters. In Ca. the air coming out the exhaust is cleaner than the air going in the intake. (At least that is what I am told by a very good friend and reliable source) My problem with the econazis is not that they want to improve the environment; it is their complete lack of defensible logic used in developing policies to do so. Sorry Peter I am off topic. I do like the old days. As a native Atlantan, I miss the days of no congestion, and the laid back lifestyle. (No, I do miss the racial troubles)

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity how 'bout a little poll??? How much do YOU spend on gas in an average month????<P>I'll start out the survey.<P>$125 - $150 / month. Visa charges alone not counting a few cash payments here and there for the motorcycles.

[ply33]

I lived in the Los Angeles metro area for 20 years and in California for 24 years. I can assure you of two things: 1) Air in LA is cleaner now than it was in the 1970s. 2) The exhaust from a car <strong>is not</strong> cleaner than the air going into it.

[Guest]

I spend less than $35 a month for my daily driver for normal driving.

[Guest]

Relative to Terry's comments about cleaner out than in. Honda does make that claim with one vehicle. See the following press release.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.hondacars.com/news/press.html?y=1997" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hondacars.com/news/press.html?y=1997</A> <P>Keep in mind though this is only ONE vehicle. Not all.<P>((addition: in rereading the press release i see it's not actually a production engine, just a promise))<p>[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Bill Stoneberg]

For me and my wife,<BR>We probably spend 3-400 bucks a month on gas.<P>My wife drives a lot visiting her patients and she drives a truck (not SUV). I also drive a truck. 12 -13 MPG for both of them.<P>Plus gas for the old cars....

[rocketraider]

Roughly $225 a month, most of which goes to a 60 mile roundtrip commute. The wagon gets filled up every four days or so, the toy cars will sometimes go 2-3 months on a tankful.<P>I pay $1.47 for Amoco premium. If the stuff were to go to $4.00 a gallon, it would put a serious hurt on me as I am in an essential services job. I have to go to work, and powerplants are usually sited away from everything. There is no public transportation between here and there, and I'm damned if I'm gonna ride a bicycle 60 miles on top of working a 12 hr rotating shift. Moving closer is not an option- the house is paid for and I have no desire to be any closer to the place once I retire from it. Quality of life and all.<P>Besides- if it goes to 4 bux a gallon. you can count on 3 of it will be taxes that can be used to further the government's interests in creating a welfare and police state. And that's all welfare was ever really about anyway- keeping people dependent on government and therefore in its control.<p>[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: rocketraider ]

[Guest Skyking]

$120.00 a month for all 4 cars....If it comes to a point where i have to drive one of those Hondas, I'll walk.

[Guest]

before we start talking about what we WOULD or WOULDN't do just think back for a minute. <P>1974 and 10 years prior to that gas prices were fairly stable at about a qurater a gallon. Prior to 1974 u could NOT give away a 6cyl 3spd chevy or ford at any price once it got 3 or 4 years old. <P>Enter 1975 ! Need i say more?????

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Between my wife and I, we probably spend $150 per month on gas. I drive 17 miles to work. She drives 13 miles to work. Mine gets 19 MPG. Her's gets 28 MPG. Other various running around is usually done in my truck. We're trying to keep the miles off of her car. Gas prices here are unstable, varying between $1.15 and $1.30. Currently they are back down to $1.24. Funny how it jumps up by dimes and nickles, but only comes down by pennies.

[Guest]

Let me hearken back to the original title of this thread.<P>One pleasant afternoon under a shady oak with Austie and Les prompted me to ask, "tell me about the good old days when you got cars for next to nothing"<BR> <BR>Austie dumped his beer at my feet and said with emphasis; "My boy, THESE are the good old days"<BR>A sentiment echoed by Les who then stated, " Never grow old Carl".

[ronbarn]

Peter, I hope this does not stray from your intent for this thread. A corollary for the "good old days" is "They don't make them the way they used to". My normal response to this is, "Thank God". <P>All of you that know me know that I love my old cars and do enjoy driving them, but the advances made with technology developments make the vehicles safer, quieter, more comfortable, etc. It not really a problem to drive my modern car, even at my age, 500 to 700 miles in a day. Anything over 250 in the '34 Chevy and I'm tired - happy but tired. Even the '61 Cad does not compare.<P>Which do I prefer - driving the old ones certainly. But when I have to make a long trip, I drive modern and trailer the old one. This has nothing to do with trailer queens, just practicality.

[ply33]

Well, to stray back to spending on gas. The typical price for 87 octane here is $1.60 and it has touched $2.00 at least once in the last year. That is the cheap gas. My Jeep Cherokee is unhappy with that so it gets the 89 octane midgrade. The 1933 Plymouth and the 2001 Prius are happy with 87. Here is the break down for the year 20Aug01 through 19Aug02:<P>1991 Jeep: $643.08 ($53.59/mo)<BR>1933 Plmouth: $132.40 ($11.03/mo)<BR>2001 Prius: 411.76 ($34.31/mo)<BR>Total: $1187.24 (98.94/mo)<P>Ain't Quicken a wonderfully compulsive program to have around? <P>I agree with Father Ron about the state of automotive engineering. The new cars are better on every point you can think of: Ride quality, performance, safety, etc. Except, of course, the fun scale. There the old cars can't be beat.

[Guest]

Ron,<P>Agree completely with you. I LOVE MY MODERN CAR! Starts on the first turn of the key, cold air conditioning (important here in AZ), power steering, great gas mileage etc etc etc.<P>I make that observation to some old car guys and get the "they don't make them like they use to" comment. They go so far as to accuse me of blasphemy! <P>Of course i love my old cars too. but for very different reasons.<P>One funny thought... didnt people use to yell at the early owners of cars something to the effect "GET A HORSE"? Comparing a horse to an old car is much like comparing a old car to a new car. Not much comparison.<p>[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Dave@Moon]

Thanks to Pete H. and PackardV8 for restoring my faith in humanity. <P>One of the things I find most interesting about this thread is how much people seem to know about welfare, especially when these people almost to a man spend more for gas in a month than someone on welfare gets to <I>live</I> on. Yup, it's fun to be an expert.<P>I have no idea how much I spend on gas each month, because our cars vary widely month to month in miles driven and because gas varies $0.20/gal+ on a day to day basis here (see: <A HREF="http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002271" TARGET=_blank>http://www.aaca.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002271</A> . By the way, this practice of gas price collusion has spread this year to include much of Indiana. If you live in an area where people only let one political party make all the rules for you {making it cheap to avoid unwanted government interference}, it'll be in your backyard soon enough!) <P>Terry:<P>As I've mentioned several times on this forum, the environmentalist community is one of the strongest supporters of the car hobby out there. These are people who believe in preserving things, be they cars, historic buildings, nitrate-based movie films, or habitat quality and quantity. This is how <I>I</I> came about my interest in old cars. The percentage of people active in the hobby at my old PA-DER job was higher than probably anyplace else I could imagine, much higher in fact than among the car repair and car parts professionals I've been privledged to meet. If people as a whole took the kind of interest in old cars that these people did, we'd be up to our necks in them.<P>And by the way, there's nothing like telling people who've spent decades studying complex problems and how to fix them that they're "econazis" to completely discredit <I>any</I> "defensible logic" you may possess. It ain't easy cleaning the air/water/soil/etc., and you can bet that if you're not <I>deeply</I> involved in the process you're not going to understand the methodology.<P>But then, who wants to ruin the fun of already being an expert?<p>[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Guest]

One further thought.<BR> In my earlier years when I was single I would drive pre-29 cars as everyday transport simply to be different, I thought I was making a statement by doing so, regardless of the fact that the maintenance required would be considered daunting for anyone unfamiliar with said cars.<P>My '27 Buick was driven to hell in the 12 years I had her, she never let me down but for some sheared axle keys and an obligatory ring job.<P>I have a 3 year old daughter now so my everyday transport alternates between my wife's Toyota and my vintage Jag sedan which requires maintenance enough to keep me busy on weekends, but my pre-29's are still driven regularly with much pleasure.<P>One thing Austie said to me, " you're here for 3 minutes on this earth, enjoy every second of it".

[Guest]

again, comparing the prewar society and its technology to post war is like comparing 2 different planets. I have 89 Caprice (mint 34K miles), 73 impala, 01 Dodge full size picup, 88 ranger, 56 Packard among a few others i drive from time to time. The 56 Packard IS by far and away the most comfortable and best driving of all. The 01 Dodge pic up runs a close 2nd. With 40+ years difference in the 56 and newer models and disregarding the psychological impact of gas prices i find the 56 just as desireable and technologicaly suited for modern day use as any modern day car. AND the 56 Packard was known for its bugs.