Cars you are too young to ever love/understand
Discussion
SystemParanoia said:
spitfire..
also no thanks!
They were loads of fun to drive when they did that though, because they started to 'hop' which was easy to catch with a bit of opposite lock.also no thanks!
It was harder to make the MkIV's do that, because they had a shorter transverse spring and a fair bit of negative camber as a consequence.
I had a couple of Spitfires and a couple of Heralds (basically the same chassis and running gear with a different body) back in the day and look back on them with fondness. Apart from the rust.
This definitely works in reverse as others have mentioned... a few weeks back I parked up in a supermarket car park to get a couple of bits, and as I got out of the car (my 20 year old mk3 golf) I clocked I was parked next to a 'mini'... which dwarfed my golf.... I don't get it.. guess I'm too old to understand 
Drummond Baize said:
Geography teachers, mainly.
When I was at school the Geography teachers were far too cool for a Minor.The guy who owned one was the RE Teacher!
Although it was quite cool watching him make new timber frame parts for it (It was a Traveller) in our woodwork lessons!
I don't think not getting Land Rovers or VW Beetles or Minis or Porsche 911s is an age thing. Some cars just don't appeal.
Most of those are horribly uncomfortable.
The 911 always just strikes me as a nasty piece of design, engineered to work - Think how good it could have been if they hadn't had to start with a Beetle!
M.
The appeal is not always about looks.
Sierra Rs Cosworth - You didn't know if it was going to put out 200bhp or leave black lines and destroy everything in its path with 400 to 500bhp. You need to think back about what other cars that were out there and comparable. None.
Mk2 Escorts etc - appreciate you may not like the looks. They are incredibly old fashioned, as is the interior. However, they are basic, very direct and the feeling of floating the back end around and being a rally driver. That is where it is (was) at.
What I would say in general is that older cars often have a more raw driving experience. Just starting up a car with a choke and getting it down the road for the first few miles requires skill and experience. Changing gear on a cold old gearbox. Etc. Driving challenge. So even if they look crap and are not your thing, getting about with 155 wide tyres and all the challenges I have already mentioned makes for a proper engaging driving experience. Yes we can all get in a fiesta st and roar from a to b very quickly with little skill. Once you are over that, you can get a lot from driving something that demands all your attention and skill.
SRW
Sierra Rs Cosworth - You didn't know if it was going to put out 200bhp or leave black lines and destroy everything in its path with 400 to 500bhp. You need to think back about what other cars that were out there and comparable. None.
Mk2 Escorts etc - appreciate you may not like the looks. They are incredibly old fashioned, as is the interior. However, they are basic, very direct and the feeling of floating the back end around and being a rally driver. That is where it is (was) at.
What I would say in general is that older cars often have a more raw driving experience. Just starting up a car with a choke and getting it down the road for the first few miles requires skill and experience. Changing gear on a cold old gearbox. Etc. Driving challenge. So even if they look crap and are not your thing, getting about with 155 wide tyres and all the challenges I have already mentioned makes for a proper engaging driving experience. Yes we can all get in a fiesta st and roar from a to b very quickly with little skill. Once you are over that, you can get a lot from driving something that demands all your attention and skill.
SRW
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BricktopST205 said:
Pretty much every fast ford that there has been there has always been something better available from a different marque. The only exception being the Sierra Cosworth.
Renault 21 Quadra. Edited by BricktopST205 on Tuesday 14th February 15:41
Steven_RW said:
Sierra Rs Cosworth - You didn't know if it was going to put out 200bhp or leave black lines and destroy everything in its path with 400 to 500bhp. You need to think back about what other cars that were out there and comparable. None.
There were loads, just not as well known. Renault 21 Turbo and Mercedes Cosworth come to mind. I never got the Range Rover/Land Rover all terrain vehicle thing.
Worked on them professionally, drove 'em. Understood their need for the emergency services/farmers. That was it.
I don't get owning two tons of lard you can't find a parking space big enough for and does rubbish miles to the gallon.
If I'm going to burn fuel, I want to have some excitement while doing it.
Worked on them professionally, drove 'em. Understood their need for the emergency services/farmers. That was it.
I don't get owning two tons of lard you can't find a parking space big enough for and does rubbish miles to the gallon.
If I'm going to burn fuel, I want to have some excitement while doing it.
austinsmirk said:
I'll fox this for you........ 
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 t
t 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 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 t
t 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.
Good rant though.
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.
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.
i used to love classics , some are truly great like merc gull wing .
but in the price i can afford i could get a tidy (ish) triumph gt6 or a 60,00 mile porsche cayman mk1 ... both around same price ... one has lowish miles , speed , handling and safety features . the other around the clock 3 times , rusty bits underneath and in a crash ..id hate to think
but in the price i can afford i could get a tidy (ish) triumph gt6 or a 60,00 mile porsche cayman mk1 ... both around same price ... one has lowish miles , speed , handling and safety features . the other around the clock 3 times , rusty bits underneath and in a crash ..id hate to think
Black S2K said:
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.
I suspect that something like the E39 5 series is probably the point at which you have everything you need (doesn't really rust, reliable, safe enough, ABS, air con etc etc) and not very much of what you don't - cable throttle, (relatively) simple engine, HVAC and audio still discrete systems, weight not gone completely loopy etc. Alot of cars in that era rather lost their charm in the following generation in my view.Steven_RW said:
The appeal is not always about looks.
Sierra Rs Cosworth - You didn't know if it was going to put out 200bhp or leave black lines and destroy everything in its path with 400 to 500bhp. You need to think back about what other cars that were out there and comparable. None.
Mk2 Escorts etc - appreciate you may not like the looks. They are incredibly old fashioned, as is the interior. However, they are basic, very direct and the feeling of floating the back end around and being a rally driver. That is where it is (was) at.
What I would say in general is that older cars often have a more raw driving experience. Just starting up a car with a choke and getting it down the road for the first few miles requires skill and experience. Changing gear on a cold old gearbox. Etc. Driving challenge. So even if they look crap and are not your thing, getting about with 155 wide tyres and all the challenges I have already mentioned makes for a proper engaging driving experience. Yes we can all get in a fiesta st and roar from a to b very quickly with little skill. Once you are over that, you can get a lot from driving something that demands all your attention and skill.
SRW
It's all about context though, isn't it? Those of us who were around to see the cars in their own eras can remember that Mk1/2 Escorts were pretty decent everyday cars and the special versions were just that, special. I'm not a massive fan myself, but I can understand why people like them, as I can with Minors, Beetles and Capris.Sierra Rs Cosworth - You didn't know if it was going to put out 200bhp or leave black lines and destroy everything in its path with 400 to 500bhp. You need to think back about what other cars that were out there and comparable. None.
Mk2 Escorts etc - appreciate you may not like the looks. They are incredibly old fashioned, as is the interior. However, they are basic, very direct and the feeling of floating the back end around and being a rally driver. That is where it is (was) at.
What I would say in general is that older cars often have a more raw driving experience. Just starting up a car with a choke and getting it down the road for the first few miles requires skill and experience. Changing gear on a cold old gearbox. Etc. Driving challenge. So even if they look crap and are not your thing, getting about with 155 wide tyres and all the challenges I have already mentioned makes for a proper engaging driving experience. Yes we can all get in a fiesta st and roar from a to b very quickly with little skill. Once you are over that, you can get a lot from driving something that demands all your attention and skill.
SRW
In my younger days, I actually really fancied a Capri. I thought they looked good, particularly the Mk2 & 3 guise, they were plentiful and cheap and, therefore, reasonably attainable. Yes, they went rusty, but everything did back then, reliability was ok, and they weren't the best handling cars around, but they were appealing.
I grew out of that phase before I could afford one (and the insurance) but I would still like to drive one as well as driving many other classics that I never experienced at the time, like Beetles, Minors, Minis and Imps.
Don't think I'd particularly want to own one though.
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
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
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff