Cars you are too young to ever love/understand
Discussion
Guvernator said:
Not many people have the courage to say, actually a lot of the iconic classic cars are pretty rubbish to be honest.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect yours as I hope you would respect mine... Two early classics I owned (as a youngster and they weren't 'classic' at the time) was a Ford Cosworth powered Lotus 7 and a '65 Morris 1275 Cooper S.. Both of these are in my opinion Iconic.. Neither of them in my opinion were rubbish.. In fact far from it.. I'd be interested to know which of the 'Iconic' classics you think are rubbish... and why.. Serious question..ChilliWhizz said:
Guvernator said:
Not many people have the courage to say, actually a lot of the iconic classic cars are pretty rubbish to be honest.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect yours as I hope you would respect mine... Two early classics I owned (as a youngster and they weren't 'classic' at the time) was a Ford Cosworth powered Lotus 7 and a '65 Morris 1275 Cooper S.. Both of these are in my opinion Iconic.. Neither of them in my opinion were rubbish.. In fact far from it.. I'd be interested to know which of the 'Iconic' classics you think are rubbish... and why.. Serious question..From personal experience - The MK1 Golf GTI is considered iconic, but it is indeed rubbish. Rubbish brakes, rubbish wipers, slow, rubbish suspension, rubbish heaters, rubbish bodywork that rusts easily, and a new word needs to be invented to describe how bad the headlights are.
I don't care if it's classic, iconic or what ever, that doesn't make it a good car to drive now. The only thing it had on it's side when it was launched was it's competition was even more rubbish, which made it look amazing by comparison.
AdamIndy said:
Puddenchucker said:
VW Beetle (The original air cooled vesion).
I struggle to understand the affection for these as anything other than rudimentary transport.
Good one. I forgot about the beetle. I struggle to understand the affection for these as anything other than rudimentary transport.
The most f
king awful, miserable, noisy, uncomfortable, unreliable, slow, st sounding pile of misery I have ever driven. It might actually be a match for the hatefulness of the defender. Maybe. I am also a big 911 fan. I love them. I cannot see the fascination of buying the older ones though. The 964 is gorgeous I'll give you that but anything earlier for the money they command you could buy a nice 996/997 or even a 991 in some circumstances which are much better looking(subjective I know), much more reliable, more usable and much more capable. Maybe I'm just missing something.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
ChilliWhizz said:
Guvernator said:
Not many people have the courage to say, actually a lot of the iconic classic cars are pretty rubbish to be honest.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect yours as I hope you would respect mine... Two early classics I owned (as a youngster and they weren't 'classic' at the time) was a Ford Cosworth powered Lotus 7 and a '65 Morris 1275 Cooper S.. Both of these are in my opinion Iconic.. Neither of them in my opinion were rubbish.. In fact far from it.. I'd be interested to know which of the 'Iconic' classics you think are rubbish... and why.. Serious question..From personal experience - The MK1 Golf GTI is considered iconic, but it is indeed rubbish. Rubbish brakes, rubbish wipers, slow, rubbish suspension, rubbish heaters, rubbish bodywork that rusts easily, and a new word needs to be invented to describe how bad the headlights are.
I don't care if it's classic, iconic or what ever, that doesn't make it a good car to drive now. The only thing it had on it's side when it was launched was it's competition was even more rubbish, which made it look amazing by comparison.
older cars clearly worse for lights, brakes, wipers etc
Most older cars just worse, period.
But too many modern cars are worse for driving feel. Of course any fair comparison needs to be with a well maintained classic.
Clearly if you just want to hop into a hire car from the airport, modern every time. But if you want steering feedback, brakes you can modulate, a chassis that talks then there are some crackers from the past. Modern cars are often excellent at what they were designed to do, it's just that they're a 'rubbish' drive. Technology and designers could make a great driver's car, but that's sadly not what the objective.
However, the real reason classics are revered is not because they were 'better' but because they evoke passion, aspiration and memories.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Probably means rubbish by more modern standards, which nearly every iconic car is to be fair.
From personal experience - The MK1 Golf GTI is considered iconic, but it is indeed rubbish. Rubbish brakes, rubbish wipers, slow, rubbish suspension, rubbish heaters, rubbish bodywork that rusts easily, and a new word needs to be invented to describe how bad the headlights are.
I don't care if it's classic, iconic or what ever, that doesn't make it a good car to drive now. The only thing it had on it's side when it was launched was it's competition was even more rubbish, which made it look amazing by comparison.
Hear what you're saying but not sure what you mean by 'good to drive' this is all subjective, but Seven and Coopers were huge fun to drive, which may be different to 'good to drive' I can't see that age will have diminished how much fun you can have in these cars... anyway, it's all personal opinion, there is no right or wrong...From personal experience - The MK1 Golf GTI is considered iconic, but it is indeed rubbish. Rubbish brakes, rubbish wipers, slow, rubbish suspension, rubbish heaters, rubbish bodywork that rusts easily, and a new word needs to be invented to describe how bad the headlights are.
I don't care if it's classic, iconic or what ever, that doesn't make it a good car to drive now. The only thing it had on it's side when it was launched was it's competition was even more rubbish, which made it look amazing by comparison.
Some points worth considering:
With the rubbish old cars, there is a huge world of wonderful events that cater for these cars. From classic car shows to Goodwood Revival or Monaco Historique, the choice is huge and wonderful. Insurance is laughably cheap.
With the brilliant modern cars, there's not much you can do with them (apart from very high end cars perhaps), save for driving far too fast too easily with the car doing all the work, grip, grip and more grip being the primary characteristic. Events range from standing in McDonalds car parks talking bks to erm, er...
Insurance is ridiculous.
Both world's come with their own language:
Rubbish cars: "What ho Bunty old bean, how's jolly old life been treating you?" etc.
Non-Rubbish cars. "Yo bruv, yr wheels is well wikid innit" etc.
Neither side 'gets' the other.
With the rubbish old cars, there is a huge world of wonderful events that cater for these cars. From classic car shows to Goodwood Revival or Monaco Historique, the choice is huge and wonderful. Insurance is laughably cheap.
With the brilliant modern cars, there's not much you can do with them (apart from very high end cars perhaps), save for driving far too fast too easily with the car doing all the work, grip, grip and more grip being the primary characteristic. Events range from standing in McDonalds car parks talking b
ks to erm, er... Insurance is ridiculous.
Both world's come with their own language:
Rubbish cars: "What ho Bunty old bean, how's jolly old life been treating you?" etc.
Non-Rubbish cars. "Yo bruv, yr wheels is well wikid innit" etc.
Neither side 'gets' the other.
Flooble said:
Ruffy94 said:
No so much any cars (as surprisingly im one of those rare early twenty somethings that really appreciates classic cars). But more an opinion that people seem to have about them.....
Non power assisted steering.
Ive driven a few cars without it now (one being the mk1 mx5 I previously owned) and I cannot understand the amount of praise it receives. Yes fair enough you get a lot of feedback and its great the 1 dry summer day you can press on, but 95% of the time (on a daily basis) id rather be driving something else that has PAS.
If I really had to pick a classic for this thread it would probably be the Land Rover Defender, yes an important car but I struggle to see what you get out of having a S1 Land Rover in the garage as a weekend car, terrible on road and I doubt many are willing to risk them off it now
Hmm, interesting one that. I am hardly a gym bunny, but I never had any issue driving cars without PAS. I wouldn't say I didn't notice, but I certainly did not find it a chore or requiring particular effort. What's the reason for your preference? Is it purely having to use a bit more muscle to turn the wheel? Non power assisted steering.
Ive driven a few cars without it now (one being the mk1 mx5 I previously owned) and I cannot understand the amount of praise it receives. Yes fair enough you get a lot of feedback and its great the 1 dry summer day you can press on, but 95% of the time (on a daily basis) id rather be driving something else that has PAS.
If I really had to pick a classic for this thread it would probably be the Land Rover Defender, yes an important car but I struggle to see what you get out of having a S1 Land Rover in the garage as a weekend car, terrible on road and I doubt many are willing to risk them off it now
I guess its mostly going to be personal preference. I think its town/ everyday driving that's the only complaint (tight corners, mini roundabouts, parking etc etc). For me if there's a way to make it easier (PAS) then why not do it. But for most cars at least I don't see the point to not having it. For example I don't think my dads e46 3 series would be better to drive if the steering was unassisted. If I had something in the garage as a 2nd car that didn't have pas it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Although I haven't really got a lot of experience of hydraulic vs electric power steering so would be an interesting comparison to look further into.
Its basically down to what you lusted after as a kid, it I was 66 and not 46 it would be R Types and Healeys, but I am not and I dont, I can appreciate them but not got that much urge to own one, I am of the age that likes 70s Fords, Cosworth Sierras, 959, F40, group B stuff and all the Japanese stuff that Gran Turismo alerted us to in the early nineties.
bristolracer said:
I think many are missing the point.
You need to see these cars in context
Example
E type 1961 yes 1961 we didn't even know who the Beatles were and WHAM the e type arrives.
Enzo Ferrari calls it 'the most beautiful car ever made' and it costs a third of one of his. Post war Britain rationing only ended 3 years before , we were heading into a new age, the real Cool Britannia. Carnaby street the mini etc and the e type. It was big big news,it even caused speed limits to be imposed on our newly built motorways.
Example
The MGB
The original MX5 a sports car available to the masses
Example
The ford escort, a decent family car for the time, ford backed motorsport heavily ' win on Sunday sell on Monday '
Example
Beetle/mini/2cv
Cheap cheap, it's how many many families got on the road.
So you may not like them but it doesn't alter the fact that most of them were relevant, and for that they deserve respect.
Put them into context don't judge them using a new car criteria.
I thought that was the whole point of the thread. To discuss cars that were important in their day and how they are now perceived in 2017. Opinions will always vary but not everything deserves respect due to the impact at the time. 70"s Male perms are a good example(as are many cars brought up on this thread)You need to see these cars in context
Example
E type 1961 yes 1961 we didn't even know who the Beatles were and WHAM the e type arrives.
Enzo Ferrari calls it 'the most beautiful car ever made' and it costs a third of one of his. Post war Britain rationing only ended 3 years before , we were heading into a new age, the real Cool Britannia. Carnaby street the mini etc and the e type. It was big big news,it even caused speed limits to be imposed on our newly built motorways.
Example
The MGB
The original MX5 a sports car available to the masses
Example
The ford escort, a decent family car for the time, ford backed motorsport heavily ' win on Sunday sell on Monday '
Example
Beetle/mini/2cv
Cheap cheap, it's how many many families got on the road.
So you may not like them but it doesn't alter the fact that most of them were relevant, and for that they deserve respect.
Put them into context don't judge them using a new car criteria.
Psimpson7 said:
Not really. To start with it can tow the full 3500kgs when the back is loaded to full payload capacity which almost none of the jap (or ford) dual cabs can.
i.e. latest NP300 Navra.
Payload is 980kgs
Tow capacity is 3500kgs
However if you want to tow 3500kgs the legal payload is reduced by 500kgs! so including passengers you can only have 480ks on board.
If towing is the single most important thing to you, then the Japanese are better. i.e. latest NP300 Navra.
Payload is 980kgs
Tow capacity is 3500kgs
However if you want to tow 3500kgs the legal payload is reduced by 500kgs! so including passengers you can only have 480ks on board.
Outside of the UK, some Land Cruiser are plated for 6000kg. Land Rovers are stuck at 3500.
firebird350 said:
AdamIndy said:
Puddenchucker said:
VW Beetle (The original air cooled vesion).
I struggle to understand the affection for these as anything other than rudimentary transport.
Good one. I forgot about the beetle. I struggle to understand the affection for these as anything other than rudimentary transport.
The most f
king awful, miserable, noisy, uncomfortable, unreliable, slow, st sounding pile of misery I have ever driven. It might actually be a match for the hatefulness of the defender. Maybe. I am also a big 911 fan. I love them. I cannot see the fascination of buying the older ones though. The 964 is gorgeous I'll give you that but anything earlier for the money they command you could buy a nice 996/997 or even a 991 in some circumstances which are much better looking(subjective I know), much more reliable, more usable and much more capable. Maybe I'm just missing something.
P-Jay said:
There's a couple of things in VW's favour.
Yes, it's a Van - but that's the appeal so people need a Van for work, some people want a van for leisure. It's not just surfers lots of people who have hobbies that need big bits of kit moving about like vans.
For a long time Transit was the obvious choice, cheap(ish) come in a million different configurations to suit your needs, cheap to run, a good reliable work tool.
But say you're a really good workman and you want a Van with nicer seats, a nice car-like interior, car-like seats, things like sat-nav, CD player (we're going back a bit here 10-15 years). Well Transits hadn't changed much in years, grey plastic, the same crappy radios they put in 80s and 90s Fiestas, no power steering for the most part, hose down, grey plastic. Renault, Vauxhall, Nissan et al were all chasing the Transit market share and pretty much sold Transit type vehicles.
VW was slightly different because you could have all sorts of car-like options because they'd been making Caravelles and Day-Vans either in-house or via 3rd parties since the old buses all that stuff already existed in their factories. They worked out that even Electricians liked Air-Con, and why not, Tradespeople can earn good salaries (this may be news to some corners of PH) if a Middle manger can't live without climate in his 5 series, why should Dave the 100k a year earning plumber. Mercedes also offered car-like Vans, but they had a reputation for rusting bodies, they cost a lot more and yes they didn't have the same VW cool van thing that VW had since the 60s.
When they launched the Sportline vans with alloy wheels and metallic colour coded bodies they took the Posh Van market.
It's almost gone full circle now, they're so popular people who don't even want / need a van are buying them - second row of seats for the family and it's "so practical".
Have you seen the price of some of them? The California Camper STARTS at £40k, and they're the slowest depreciating vehicle sold in the UK at the moment.
Thanks P-Jay. I understand it much better now.Yes, it's a Van - but that's the appeal so people need a Van for work, some people want a van for leisure. It's not just surfers lots of people who have hobbies that need big bits of kit moving about like vans.
For a long time Transit was the obvious choice, cheap(ish) come in a million different configurations to suit your needs, cheap to run, a good reliable work tool.
But say you're a really good workman and you want a Van with nicer seats, a nice car-like interior, car-like seats, things like sat-nav, CD player (we're going back a bit here 10-15 years). Well Transits hadn't changed much in years, grey plastic, the same crappy radios they put in 80s and 90s Fiestas, no power steering for the most part, hose down, grey plastic. Renault, Vauxhall, Nissan et al were all chasing the Transit market share and pretty much sold Transit type vehicles.
VW was slightly different because you could have all sorts of car-like options because they'd been making Caravelles and Day-Vans either in-house or via 3rd parties since the old buses all that stuff already existed in their factories. They worked out that even Electricians liked Air-Con, and why not, Tradespeople can earn good salaries (this may be news to some corners of PH) if a Middle manger can't live without climate in his 5 series, why should Dave the 100k a year earning plumber. Mercedes also offered car-like Vans, but they had a reputation for rusting bodies, they cost a lot more and yes they didn't have the same VW cool van thing that VW had since the 60s.
When they launched the Sportline vans with alloy wheels and metallic colour coded bodies they took the Posh Van market.
It's almost gone full circle now, they're so popular people who don't even want / need a van are buying them - second row of seats for the family and it's "so practical".
Have you seen the price of some of them? The California Camper STARTS at £40k, and they're the slowest depreciating vehicle sold in the UK at the moment.
firebird350 said:
Missing something? Like the fact that maybe the 911 is really nothing more than a "sports Beetle"?!
Just imagining a hercules beetle (the insect) with racing stripes now...Ruffy94 said:
Flooble said:
Ruffy94 said:
No so much any cars (as surprisingly im one of those rare early twenty somethings that really appreciates classic cars). But more an opinion that people seem to have about them.....
Non power assisted steering.
Ive driven a few cars without it now (one being the mk1 mx5 I previously owned) and I cannot understand the amount of praise it receives. Yes fair enough you get a lot of feedback and its great the 1 dry summer day you can press on, but 95% of the time (on a daily basis) id rather be driving something else that has PAS.
If I really had to pick a classic for this thread it would probably be the Land Rover Defender, yes an important car but I struggle to see what you get out of having a S1 Land Rover in the garage as a weekend car, terrible on road and I doubt many are willing to risk them off it now
Hmm, interesting one that. I am hardly a gym bunny, but I never had any issue driving cars without PAS. I wouldn't say I didn't notice, but I certainly did not find it a chore or requiring particular effort. What's the reason for your preference? Is it purely having to use a bit more muscle to turn the wheel? Non power assisted steering.
Ive driven a few cars without it now (one being the mk1 mx5 I previously owned) and I cannot understand the amount of praise it receives. Yes fair enough you get a lot of feedback and its great the 1 dry summer day you can press on, but 95% of the time (on a daily basis) id rather be driving something else that has PAS.
If I really had to pick a classic for this thread it would probably be the Land Rover Defender, yes an important car but I struggle to see what you get out of having a S1 Land Rover in the garage as a weekend car, terrible on road and I doubt many are willing to risk them off it now
I guess its mostly going to be personal preference. I think its town/ everyday driving that's the only complaint (tight corners, mini roundabouts, parking etc etc). For me if there's a way to make it easier (PAS) then why not do it. But for most cars at least I don't see the point to not having it. For example I don't think my dads e46 3 series would be better to drive if the steering was unassisted. If I had something in the garage as a 2nd car that didn't have pas it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Although I haven't really got a lot of experience of hydraulic vs electric power steering so would be an interesting comparison to look further into.
I drove (owned in some cases) many of these cars without PAS at the time and never experienced the steering as heavy, examples being a 1987 Citroen BX 1.4, a 1990 Citroen BX 1.4 (lighter engine & gearbox) a 1990 Fiat Uno 45S, a 1993 Citroen ZX 1.4 and a 1998 Saxo 1.1. Yes, the steering was lower geared than the PAS version, so the wheel needed to be turned more, but it was never difficult, unless you were trying to turn the wheel while stationary. On the ZX, the steering was the best feature of the car IMHO.
Crucially, I had never owned a car with PAS at that point.
I would accept that larger cars with heavier engines (even diesel versions of the BX and ZX) might well have needed PAS, but I was always less convinced front engine RWD cars would need it. It was a very, very sad day when the MGF was available with PAS and even, according to many, needed it!
Given the way cars have evolved since then, getting larger, heavier and with ever fatter tyres, PAS is probably required on most cars now, but I do still have a hard tine believing that it's really required on a Fiat 500, or particularly on a Twingo!
I'm 27 and I don't get the appeal of anything classic from the UK, I put this down to them not featuring in my childhood or Gran Turismo. I keep going to classic car shows and being disappointed by the endless lines of old British cars, I yearn for an old Datsun or Toyota instead. Even something German would be more interesting...
TVRs do nothing for me regardless of age.
TVRs do nothing for me regardless of age.
Frankthered said:
I get a bit sad about the proliferation of PAS. I think motoring journalists in the late 80's and early 90's have to bear some responsibility for the demise of non-assisted steering. I always believed PAS had a place, in particular on larger FWD cars, especially when diesels became more popular, but it got very boring for me, reading how on smaller, relatively light, FWD cars, the PAS was a "necessary option" otherwise the steering was too heavy.
I drove (owned in some cases) many of these cars without PAS at the time and never experienced the steering as heavy, examples being a 1987 Citroen BX 1.4, a 1990 Citroen BX 1.4 (lighter engine & gearbox) a 1990 Fiat Uno 45S, a 1993 Citroen ZX 1.4 and a 1998 Saxo 1.1. Yes, the steering was lower geared than the PAS version, so the wheel needed to be turned more, but it was never difficult, unless you were trying to turn the wheel while stationary. On the ZX, the steering was the best feature of the car IMHO.
Crucially, I had never owned a car with PAS at that point.
I would accept that larger cars with heavier engines (even diesel versions of the BX and ZX) might well have needed PAS, but I was always less convinced front engine RWD cars would need it. It was a very, very sad day when the MGF was available with PAS and even, according to many, needed it!
Given the way cars have evolved since then, getting larger, heavier and with ever fatter tyres, PAS is probably required on most cars now, but I do still have a hard tine believing that it's really required on a Fiat 500, or particularly on a Twingo!
i see your point. However, times have moved and people would be shocked by a non-pas today. I've driven a Yaris on skinny 155s that was heavy to park. over-inflated the tyres to help that, but i think people accepted heavy parking in the past because they weren't used to anything else. Fat tyres and fwd need some assistance. Unfortunately that assistance is now so much it's removed most of the feel. A Lotus is light, for obvious reasons, a shame that Porsche felt it need to go pas.I drove (owned in some cases) many of these cars without PAS at the time and never experienced the steering as heavy, examples being a 1987 Citroen BX 1.4, a 1990 Citroen BX 1.4 (lighter engine & gearbox) a 1990 Fiat Uno 45S, a 1993 Citroen ZX 1.4 and a 1998 Saxo 1.1. Yes, the steering was lower geared than the PAS version, so the wheel needed to be turned more, but it was never difficult, unless you were trying to turn the wheel while stationary. On the ZX, the steering was the best feature of the car IMHO.
Crucially, I had never owned a car with PAS at that point.
I would accept that larger cars with heavier engines (even diesel versions of the BX and ZX) might well have needed PAS, but I was always less convinced front engine RWD cars would need it. It was a very, very sad day when the MGF was available with PAS and even, according to many, needed it!
Given the way cars have evolved since then, getting larger, heavier and with ever fatter tyres, PAS is probably required on most cars now, but I do still have a hard tine believing that it's really required on a Fiat 500, or particularly on a Twingo!
colin_p said:
A note or public information post to all you mid 20's nippers.
You will get older, you will slowly, surely and inevitably turn into your Dad. It cannot be stopped.
This. All of this... However, I am 32, and I pretty much hate all wedge designed cars from an aesthetic point of view. You will get older, you will slowly, surely and inevitably turn into your Dad. It cannot be stopped.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff