Cars you are too young to ever love/understand

Cars you are too young to ever love/understand

Author
Discussion

3yardy3

270 posts

113 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
Im 23, I currently drive a FN2 Civic Type R, Ive owned an Rx8, BMW 320d, Hyundai Coupe etc...

Ive just bought a 1972 Beetle, Its the worst car i've ever driven in my life... However it is also one of the best.

Its back to basics, I'm teaching myself everything as i go and you always know that if it doesn't start or cuts out or something breaks it's never going to be anything more than what a good mechanics tool kit can't fix.

That's the appeal to me! Plus the fact they look awesome low and slow.

tankplanker

2,479 posts

278 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
CABC said:
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.
While I prefer to have no PAS if the car is light enough, the Exige I drove last year is about as fat as I'd want a car with no PAS for regular driving. I don't mind hydraulic PAS as it is possible to get some good feel back from a decent setup, see the earlier Evoras. Later Evoras (I think all 400s and 410s) have a remote hydraulic PAS that doesn't offer quite the same level of feel when I tried one.

I do not like or want electric PAS, any feel is usually simulated not actual feel. I have yet to drive a car that had good hydraulic PAS with a previous model that is as good with the new model with electric PAS, most are just awful. Weakest area of the ND MX-5 compared to the NC is the electric steering they forced on the ND. I think I read that electric PAS normally saves about 1mpg over hydraulic, is it really worth it in a car aimed at enthusiasts?

eliotc

24 posts

281 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
At my age, the cars that I am too young to understand are pretty much restricted to the Model T Ford - what the hell did they see in that pile of mierda :-D

Someone said Escort, surely they weren't talking about Mexico, RS2000, Cosworth? Land Rovers, don't understand them either, but then I'm not a CAMRA member and I don't smell of moss. Old Jags too, not when there's old Mercs.

Can we do one of these on "Cars you are too old to ever understand" - I could fill a book there :-)

Frankthered

1,619 posts

179 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
CABC said:
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 agree.

I doubt I would want to be without PAS on my daily driver now, which is a shame really. The bits I forgot to mention in my earlier post were that everybody now expects quick racks and smaller steering wheels too. I do think once you get used to PAS, anything without assistance will feel heavy.

Guess I'm just longing for a simpler time.

CABC

5,542 posts

100 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
Frankthered said:
Guess I'm just longing for a simpler time.
we all need more than one car. Modern for chores, but fun should be less compromised. My fleet is predominantly non-pas wink

Hugh Jarse

3,486 posts

204 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
Black S2K said:
The mistake most people make (probably amplified by the innocence of youth) is to judge cars by current standards.

In which case, most classics are crap to drive. Not all, however.

Regarded from the perspective of their place in history, they probably make a great deal of sense and so does the nostalgia. It is also with some distance of time that many can be properly and objectively observed and evaluated. Which is why journalists tend to revise their opinions of a lot of old stuff which they may not have correctly evaluated at the time.

Since modern cars are so overly-complicated and anodyne, there's precious few I actually like. And they're mostly from dinosaur brands, such as Lotus.

Therefore the amount of fun which can be extracted from something older and more analogue is something that can appeal to any age group. I've never had the chance to drive a Bugatti T35 nor a Ferrari 250 GTO, but I'd jump at the chance. Pretty ambivalent about their modern products.

The race of nations to see who can devalue their currency the fastest, has resulted in people rushing to invest in other, solid assets. The prices for 'blue-chip' cars are now astronomical and that has dragged up many a bag-of-chips car. See the prices the Germans will pay for a VW Samba-bus! That's too much merely to pose at the beach eyeing up the girls, and distorts the enthusiast market. Monetary value ought not to come into play when making a product judgment, but inevitably it does.

LJKS predicted (correctly in my view) that the golden age for cars would be those around 1990-2000, where they were properly-built, yet not de-sensitised and wrought overweight by all the safety and emission nannies.

Some great posts in the thread, a top read.
I also never got the e-type and 911.
One i detest is a Herald, despite being generally BL inclined.
Regarding prices, i cant believe there can be a sustained number of beards, with garage space and inclination to put up with pre 1955 stuff and more ordinary classics. One good thing will be when everything is satellite controlled, tootling about in your deathtrap will be a lot safer. I have a Frogeye from 1958 which is a hoot to drive, everybody loves it, but as a daily, nope.

Hugh Jarse

3,486 posts

204 months

Thursday 16th February 2017
quotequote all
Mr Peel said:
austinsmirk said:
I'll fox this for you........ smile

10k now for a pile of rotting scrap that really is still worth £100: but now needs a £20k resto.


me too, big into VW's bugs/campers. used to buy full bays for £100 just to strip for parts to sell. My first full running complete 72 bay was £550.

when they were a tad tatty but still totally great: yes they were top fun for a few quid.

£30k to drive to tt fest and sit in a field living the dreem. feck off.

totally get it and loved and still love them though. but not at those prices. they were vans to get drunk in, smoke in, shag in. to strap bikes, canoes, surf boards to and have fun with. not all the dub scene nonsense like it is now.
This is where T4s come in biggrin

Good rant though.
Top rant!

e21Mark

16,205 posts

172 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
I think I'm too old to understand modern cars. Cars that seem devoid of feel, character, individuality and style. They do have Bluetooth, wifi and eleventy seven air bags though! Evidently all that stuff will help you live longer? Then again, maybe it just feels longer? Mind you, it'll soon be all about driverless cars so we can update Facebook and post selfies on Instagram uninterrupted.

Personally I prefer cars of yesteryear. I want something that has to be driven, as opposed to something I simply sit in. I want to learn my cars character and develop the skills to get the best from it. I don't need to be able to go faster, as I can enjoy the lower threshold of grip my older car offers. A car I'll drive for the sake of it. I also like the noises, the smells and the tactility of older cars, combined with nostalgia and memories of my youth. My car is a time machine, it takes me back 30 years every time I look at it. No modern car can do that. smile

It does have a button that opens the windows though!



If you can't see what all the fuss is about regarding those rather quaint old Escorts maybe take a few moments to watch this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwl40XFvpLE



Edited by e21Mark on Friday 17th February 18:23

marcosgt

11,011 posts

175 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all


I drove one of these (It's a 33 right?).

It was forgettable and a bit rubbish compared to the other cars I drove at the time (looking for a new one) and didn't even have the decency to look good - At least Alfa got that right with the 156, but it was another car I drove, was disappointed in and forgot.

The ONLY reason I remember the 33 was that the salesman's answer to my question about ABS was "It has manual ABS!" - When I pressed him, he explained it had rear discs... biggrinbiggrinbiggrin

I don't say this to offend, but to illustrate that people's views are tainted a bit by time. My first car was a Triumph Dolomite. Did 95 MPH flat out, 0-60 in about 12 seconds, but I loved that car and still do love 'em! 5 adults fitted easily in it, although it was smaller than a current Mini!

Happy memories with an Alfa would no doubt make me remember them as great cars, but my experiences have been nothing but disappointing...

To be honest, I've found it hard to get excited about most modern cars (ones I can afford - I was mightily impressed by the 458 Speciale!) since about 2000! I bought my current car in 2008 and have been thinking of changing it for 5 years, I've got a decent sum of money in the bank specifically to buy a newer car (I add £500 a month!), but I've yet to find anything I'd want to spend it on! frown

Modern cars are reliable, fast, economical, dependable and packed with gadgets, but if they go wrong, you have to throw them away, because everything costs so much to replace (nothing can be fixed!). They also, on the whole isolate the driver from the horrible experience of driving with numb suspension, automatic gearboxes and feel-free steering, acres of sound insulating materials and more airbags than Jordan's personal cosmetic surgery clinic!

e21Mark has nailed it for me!

M.


Edited by marcosgt on Friday 17th February 17:35

Techno

22 posts

219 months

Friday 24th February 2017
quotequote all
What an interesting read. I've found that driving cars from different eras gives a perspective on how the supposed best drives (via our journalist heroes) in the past compare to the supposed best drives of the moment. It's always difficult agreeing or disagreeing as driving is completely personal as is whether a car looks good or not, although there are trends most petrol heads agree on. I've always wanted to drive fast but safely and this is hard to do, unless you're actually aiming to drift etc. For me, the shove in the back from acceleration is addictive as well as a great engine and exhaust sound that usually accompanies it. So modern aerodynamic lightweight performance cars with high bhp and torque are my best thrill every time. They often handle well, but cornering at higher speeds I still find disappointing because the limits always remain even if, for example, ultimate Nurburgring lap times increase, which I suspect is true even with hypercars although I speak from a position of weakness having neither driven the ring or any hypercar! Beauty - well I think the DB9 is the most beautiful on the road, going back in time as far as you want and probably in the future too. The DB11 and other poster makes, are nice and it's great to see designers doing their best to match the sculptured art of car design to aerodynamics and other technologies, but to look at as art, none is as beautiful as the DB9 I think. To answer the question - modern cars win for me every time, but I can't help love all cars in their own way as understanding them puts others into perspective, so the premise of being too young is flawed right from the start.

GravelBen

15,656 posts

229 months

Friday 24th February 2017
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
Can we impose some sort of detention to these young people?

wink

Compare it to everything else around it! You have to take design in context, like popular music.
I do really like some designs of the era though (like the 904 GTS cloud9 ) ... just not the E-type. Some versions/examples do look nice enough from certain angles, but overall the proportions just don't work for me.

I guess it came along a few years after, but for example I'd much, much rather own a 240Z than an E-type.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 24th February 2017
quotequote all
Citroen CX/DS etc..
Frogeye Sprite.

Trabi601

4,865 posts

94 months

Friday 24th February 2017
quotequote all
marcosgt said:


I drove one of these (It's a 33 right?).

It was forgettable and a bit rubbish compared to the other cars I drove at the time (looking for a new one) and didn't even have the decency to look good - At least Alfa got that right with the 156, but it was another car I drove, was disappointed in and forgot.
The 33 16v was a fantastic car - one of the last proper, raw hot-hatches. 950kg, 138bhp, 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. So they were every bit as quick as a Golf GTI 16v. Faster than an RS Turbo.

I'd love one for track days, but they're very rare and getting quite pricey.

dazwalsh

6,095 posts

140 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
Im 31 and a qtr so anything mainstream mid 80's to early 90's I deem as boxy and st. Ford in particular created some appalling heaps of junk but I can see why someone might have a fondness for a Ford orion ghia if they shagged their first bird in the back of one or something, as if it goes beyond the looks of the car itself and its more memories of that era

Like for example It was only when I started watching touring cars when I turned 10ish that saloons like the Renault laguna, Peugeot 406, cavaliers etc became cool in my eyes, yet in 15 years time I show my son a 94 Nissan primera he is going to laugh at how truely shocking it looks but I found them cool because they were being flung round a race track.



Techno

22 posts

219 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
240Z still looks good today. I agree that the E type works from some angles. I think the MGB, MGB GT, C & V8 also still look good. The original Mini was a hoot to drive and a great transverse engine, neat looking design even today I think, as the BMW ones are ok but are bigger with some versions still cramped and others looking too bulky i propose.. Pre 1989 911 s look a bit dated at times like similar era cars because of the vertical rake of the windscreen I think, although the E30 M3 proportions I reckon still look good. The 80s 911 s seem to require loads of concentration to drive fast. It's concentration we all feel in other cars at the limit, but in these cars, it's delivery feels different to me, presumably because of the physics at work and so in my inexperienced hands, these 911 s can get out of hand so quickly - to me they feel like the russian roulette of the car world, which is their inherent reward and adrenaline rush, making them a full on driving experience that all of us should try, as an extreme rear wheel drive phenomenon.

Mr Tidy

22,070 posts

126 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
iwantcheese5 said:
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. getmecoat
I think the problem is that your childhood was Gran Turismo!

A trip into the real world would be a mind-expanding experience for you, if you are brave enough! (As in grow some)! laugh

V10Ace

301 posts

92 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
Any Alfa, apart from the 4C which I only like the tuner version that was featured recently...

so called

9,074 posts

208 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
Never used to get the Austin Healy, now u think they're the dogs nuts.
I've got a mate in Sacramento who inherited one.
He's not really interested in it but I can't persuade him to sell it to me. frown


s m

23,165 posts

202 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
Trabi601 said:
marcosgt said:


I drove one of these (It's a 33 right?).

It was forgettable and a bit rubbish compared to the other cars I drove at the time (looking for a new one) and didn't even have the decency to look good - At least Alfa got that right with the 156, but it was another car I drove, was disappointed in and forgot.
The 33 16v was a fantastic car - one of the last proper, raw hot-hatches. 950kg, 138bhp, 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. So they were every bit as quick as a Golf GTI 16v. Faster than an RS Turbo.

I'd love one for track days, but they're very rare and getting quite pricey.
Alfa was one for Alfa fans though

The mag reviews slated it generally - the engine did the business but the chassis got poor reviews. They were faster top end than the RS Turbo by a few mph as you might expect with more poke in the same weight ( 1010kg ) but trailed on acceleration in every test I've seen. RS Turbo had been out 5 years by then and was about to be replaced by the RS2000
The French cars were the class leaders by 1990 really for an overall hot hatch







Performance Car tested it against the 309 and Mazda 323

Not the best review






Autocar review was slightly kinder just saying it was a "severely flawed package"





As often with Alfas, engine was very good

Ste372

626 posts

86 months

Saturday 25th February 2017
quotequote all
I got offered my uncles mk2 escort 1.3 2dr Gold with a brownish/beige vinyl roof for free when I was 17. Turned my nose up at it had a proper strop said I wasn't driving that for my first car! Ended up behind the wheel of a j reg pug 106 which I somehow thought was better!

Genuinely gutted when I realised what I had missed out on