Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For every "cool" Chevelle 2 door with a big 4bbl V8 there were a dozen "uncool" Chevelle Malibu 4 doors with the I6 or 2bbl V8... People tend to forget all the boring, staid, blandmobiles that were out there at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad1320
That still looks better than a ton of what's out there.
Yes, it looks good to me. Nice to see a car that doesn't have the blob- or egg-shaped look! Also nice to see chrome and front/rear overhang. I never did like the chopped-off trunk look with the mail slot "trunk!"
There was a reason that there were many 4-door, 6-cylinder or 2-bbl V-8s sold back then...
- They were less expensive.
- Better fuel mileage which travelling salesmen liked or a family on a strict budget.
- Easy to maintain.
- A car for a wife who didn't care about acceleration.
- Parents that had children or elderly parents; easy for them to slip into the back seat.
I don't know why cvetters63 is so anti-vintage car... and he has owned some! I have owned several and have really enjoyed and still enjoy them.
I never saw a sedan that I thought was cool. Convertibles, roadsters and a few wagons, yes.
Well, I like the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham from the '60s and '70s. They were only available in sedan form. This is a 1968. Nice, flowing lines even as a four-door.
Subjective opinion, but that car only looked good on the showroom floor. After a couple years of use, it was just another 4 door grampa's hoopty.
Looks like that car needs a wash and wax. Posting that kind of example isn't exactly supporting your claim.
Quote:
Most cars were just boring. We only think they aren't now due to rose colored glasses...
It's not just rose-colored glass. Many younger (under 30) people do admire vintage cars, even the "plain" ones because they are wise enough to know that they weren't styled by the government but by actual auto stylists.
And take as an example, a two-door and four-door '66 Ford Fairlane or Plymouth Satellite. They in general had the same front and rear end styling. The major differences being the doors, of course, and maybe the roofline.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,803 posts, read 81,756,982 times
Reputation: 58190
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega
People like the old cars because American V8's had instant off idle torque that made the cars leap. Less so today even though today's cars are faster.
For people like me that did our own wrenching miss the sound and smell of a carbureted V8, with the minor oil leaks, and raw gas coming out the exhaust from unburned fuel. We had to change the oil every 3,000 miles, often adding a quart or two in between changes. We had to do a tune up every 10,000 miles, replacing spark plugs, distributor cap, points, condenser and rotor, set timing and carburetor mixture. We had to replace brake shoes and turn the drums about every 15-20,000 miles, and brake cylinders every 20,000. Now that the first tuneup is at 100,000 miles, brake pads last 50,000+ miles, and synthetic blend oil lasts 7,500 miles, all of that fun is gone unless you buy a classic.
Yes, it looks good to me. Nice to see a car that doesn't have the blob- or egg-shaped look! Also nice to see chrome and front/rear overhang. I never did like the chopped-off trunk look with the mail slot "trunk!"
There was a reason that there were many 4-door, 6-cylinder or 2-bbl V-8s sold back then...
- They were less expensive.
- Better fuel mileage which travelling salesmen liked or a family on a strict budget.
- Easy to maintain.
- A car for a wife who didn't care about acceleration.
- Parents that had children or elderly parents; easy for them to slip into the back seat.
I don't know why cvetters63 is so anti-vintage car... and he has owned some! I have owned several and have really enjoyed and still enjoy them.
I'm not anti vintage car. I'm a fan of ALL cars, old AND new, and hate people that get fixated on an era as though that's the only era that cars are/were good. MOST cars of the '60s and '70s were not cool. The only reason the non-cool cars are considered cool now are due to rose colored glasses and the "survivor" factor. Most were considered disposable. So if one survives it's amazing to see, but that doesn't make it cool now any more than it made it cool THEN.
I grew up on those cars in the '60s and '70s and I remember how people avoided the 4 handle cars, economy cars, and wagons then. They were uncool, and as they aged, they became just another old used car. A 10 year old 4 door sedan was no more cool then than a 10 year old Corolla or Camry is now.
This changed with the rise of the sport sedan, as I mentioned, where European cars became desirable due to performance and they produced some outrageous performance sedans.
And also, you are wrong about how cars aged then. Yes, some of them were doing just fine at 100k miles. But most were used up by then, and had already had a few rebuilds, and they needed constant tune-ups. There's a reason warrantees were short. The reason I posted the one needing repair is that's the condition most were in by 10 years old. Again, I grew up around them. Modern cars are just much better at being cars, even if the majority of them are ALSO not considered "cool."
Somene posted a thread cars are no longer cool. I agree with what most people sais in that thread. One thing I always notice is talking to my dad, older neighbors, dads friends, etc all of them had really cool cars growing up even when they were younger.
I suppose looking back those cars are cooler to us today maybe then they were to them back then since designs have gotten less unique and less cool and also because those cars fixed up now cost 30k if not more but even back then i imagnie those were cool cars.
How did people back then afford cool cars? When my dad was in his late teens had a bright orange corvette with ttops and I think he was working nights stocking in a grocery store.
In my late teens early 20s i was driving like chevy celebrities i bought for $100 bucks and when i got a nice car it was like a used galant with 100k on it.
Were cars more affordable back then or how come older generations every guy you talk to had some cool muscle car and today all the teens, young 20s etc are driving hyundai accents and stuff.
Most cars built today are light years ahead of anything built 20 or more years ago.
As far as how abd why cars were lower cost or more affordable....they weren’t. What changed is the value of a dollar. A 1960 dollar had more buying power than a 2020 dollar. It’s not that a 1960 built house gained value. It’s the dollar losing buying power. It takes more dollars to buy the same item.
I'm not anti vintage car. I'm a fan of ALL cars, old AND new, and hate people that get fixated on an era as though that's the only era that cars are/were good. MOST cars of the '60s and '70s were not cool. The only reason the non-cool cars are considered cool now are due to rose colored glasses and the "survivor" factor. Most were considered disposable. So if one survives it's amazing to see, but that doesn't make it cool now any more than it made it cool THEN.
Many vintage cars were not meant to be "cool" in the first place. The reason many "uncool" cars were built was because of the demand. The average family wanted a practical car, so that is what the car companies built.
Quote:
I grew up on those cars in the '60s and '70s and I remember how people avoided the 4 handle cars, economy cars, and wagons then. They were uncool, and as they aged, they became just another old used car. A 10 year old 4 door sedan was no more cool then than a 10 year old Corolla or Camry is now.
It is a matter of opinion, of course, but even though I was not into wagons, some were quite stylish. Certainly more stylish than a Corolla or Camry! For example, this 1963 Mercury Meteor...
Quote:
And also, you are wrong about how cars aged then. Yes, some of them were doing just fine at 100k miles. But most were used up by then, and had already had a few rebuilds, and they needed constant tune-ups. There's a reason warrantees were short. The reason I posted the one needing repair is that's the condition most were in by 10 years old. Again, I grew up around them. Modern cars are just much better at being cars, even if the majority of them are ALSO not considered "cool."
It appears I was accurate. Most had "a few rebuilds" by 100,000 miles. Highly unlikely. "Constant tune-ups?" Maybe once a year, if that. No big deal. And tune ups didn't cost much back then (no computerized equipment).
As for warrantees, Chrysler Corporation had a very good 5 year/50,000 mile warranty starting in 1963. I believe there are some cars even now that don't have a 5 year warranty!
I wonder if car designers really get the freedom to design cool cars or are they obligated to design cars that sell. If a car manufacturer breaks out and designs a "cool" beautiful car that sells, it doesn't take long for other car manufacturers to steal the design, borrow cues from the design, or make their cars that design language in order to compete, and sell cars.
I wish car manufacturers would take more risks and let creativity have a chance. Unfortunately, that won't work when its about dollars and profits.
2011 was a single year ago for the post you quoted
This is a thread from 2012...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
