Old cars,built better ?
Discussion
I`m a (or was) Peugeot fan. Tales of 404`s, 504`s and 505`s in the African bush are legendary and Peugeot still build the 405 in Iran. The last of the real Peugeot`s was the 06 range. My wife still drives a 97 406GTX, never let her down, comfortable and drives like a Merc`. 306`s were cracking little cars,tough and reliable.
As for the Peugeot XU diesel engine found in most models in those days, absolutely bullet proof, would last for ever.
From around 2000 Peugeot went down hill, build quality,reliability,you name it they had it.
As for the Peugeot XU diesel engine found in most models in those days, absolutely bullet proof, would last for ever.
From around 2000 Peugeot went down hill, build quality,reliability,you name it they had it.
I think it's possible materials in certain cases were better simply because materials science and design was more primitive so they had to go for overkill, but the designs also lacked precision in every area which may have a knock on effect in longevity.
Beyond that there's no comparison. Most old cars are a bit of a disgrace apart from honourable exceptions like old Peugeots and Mercedes.
Few people would think twice about buying a 100,000 mile car. Back in the day that would be a mind boggling bet to take.
Beyond that there's no comparison. Most old cars are a bit of a disgrace apart from honourable exceptions like old Peugeots and Mercedes.
Few people would think twice about buying a 100,000 mile car. Back in the day that would be a mind boggling bet to take.
i'd offer a few points:
- technology and production processes are far superior today
- engineers often ruled in the past (Merc and Saab especially come to mind)
- bean counters and marketing now rule
- consumers don't care beyond some facile elements
so, the truth is that a modern car *could* easily be far superior in all aspects at a reasonable price.
Sadly, they're not. but i'd say most consumers are happier.
- technology and production processes are far superior today
- engineers often ruled in the past (Merc and Saab especially come to mind)
- bean counters and marketing now rule
- consumers don't care beyond some facile elements
so, the truth is that a modern car *could* easily be far superior in all aspects at a reasonable price.
Sadly, they're not. but i'd say most consumers are happier.
bloomen said:
I think it's possible materials in certain cases were better simply because materials science and design was more primitive so they had to go for overkill, but the designs also lacked precision in every area which may have a knock on effect in longevity.
Beyond that there's no comparison. Most old cars are a bit of a disgrace apart from honourable exceptions like old Peugeots and Mercedes.
Few people would think twice about buying a 100,000 mile car. Back in the day that would be a mind boggling bet to take.
+1Beyond that there's no comparison. Most old cars are a bit of a disgrace apart from honourable exceptions like old Peugeots and Mercedes.
Few people would think twice about buying a 100,000 mile car. Back in the day that would be a mind boggling bet to take.
There's a line on Fools and Horses where a used car is said to have 80,000 miles on it. 'Is that genuine?' asks someone, the joke being that nobody would clock a car to such an astronomical mileage.
Bit of both sides for me. The proliferation of plastic clips must look good on the balance sheet and trim will fit perfectly in the factory but 10 years down the line after the door card has been on and off a couple of times and half those clips will have broken and it'll be rattle city. Bolts and screws might be more expensive and a bit more relaxed on alignment but they rarely break.
Similarly, electrical connectors are often brilliantly effective on new cars, tight as a drum and never going to let moisture in but take them apart a couple of times (if you can!) and everything gets a bit brittle. Older cruder stuff is much more appealing at that point.
Similarly, electrical connectors are often brilliantly effective on new cars, tight as a drum and never going to let moisture in but take them apart a couple of times (if you can!) and everything gets a bit brittle. Older cruder stuff is much more appealing at that point.
If by "built better", you mean built to last, I think the ideal car would be something designed a long time ago with no complex electronics, but with modern production methods and rust protection. Something like this perhaps:
https://www.nissan.com.mx/promociones/tsuru/2017/
It's an early 1990s Nissan Sunny which has only stopped being produced around a year ago, and can still be bought brand new today. They're often used as taxis and service vehicles, and most of the older ones have well over 1 million KM on the clock.
They're a terrible car in almost every way, but in terms of longevity and running costs, hard to beat I think.
https://www.nissan.com.mx/promociones/tsuru/2017/
It's an early 1990s Nissan Sunny which has only stopped being produced around a year ago, and can still be bought brand new today. They're often used as taxis and service vehicles, and most of the older ones have well over 1 million KM on the clock.
They're a terrible car in almost every way, but in terms of longevity and running costs, hard to beat I think.
Cars today are way better built.
Cars of my youth would rot and would need fettling to keep them running. I've had cars which had a starting routine that you needed to follow just to get it running.
These days you can buy a rust free 10 year old car with 60k on the clock, and add another 60-70k with it starting first time every time, and it never having any serious problems.
Cars of my youth would rot and would need fettling to keep them running. I've had cars which had a starting routine that you needed to follow just to get it running.
These days you can buy a rust free 10 year old car with 60k on the clock, and add another 60-70k with it starting first time every time, and it never having any serious problems.
Geekman said:
If by "built better", you mean built to last, I think the ideal car would be something designed a long time ago with no complex electronics, but with modern production methods and rust protection. Something like this perhaps:
https://www.nissan.com.mx/promociones/tsuru/2017/
It's an early 1990s Nissan Sunny which has only stopped being produced around a year ago, and can still be bought brand new today. They're often used as taxis and service vehicles, and most of the older ones have well over 1 million KM on the clock.
They're a terrible car in almost every way, but in terms of longevity and running costs, hard to beat I think.
Yeah, saw those in Mexico, good call but needs some modern crash safety adding in, as it hasnt got any.https://www.nissan.com.mx/promociones/tsuru/2017/
It's an early 1990s Nissan Sunny which has only stopped being produced around a year ago, and can still be bought brand new today. They're often used as taxis and service vehicles, and most of the older ones have well over 1 million KM on the clock.
They're a terrible car in almost every way, but in terms of longevity and running costs, hard to beat I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OysZ_4lp0
the Mexicans love them as they are so dependable but scary if you crash them.
J4CKO said:
Yeah, saw those in Mexico, good call but needs some modern crash safety adding in, as it hasnt got any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OysZ_4lp0
the Mexicans love them as they are so dependable but scary if you crash them.
Indeed, I've seen several totally flattened by SUVs / trucks, and they've placed several of the wrecks in the middle of a local DC in an attempt to get people to slow down.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OysZ_4lp0
the Mexicans love them as they are so dependable but scary if you crash them.
sr.guiri said:
You only have to look at a Merc W123 or Porsche 993 to know the answer to this.
Rumour has it that the 996 was 50% cheaper to produce than the 993, and I doubt the current 99 whatever it is, is anything like the 993 was.
Exceptions rather than the rule I'd say, even original exhausts these days last 10+ years, my Dad was saying that MK2 Escorts back in the 70s/80s were rotted in sometimes 3 years from new!Rumour has it that the 996 was 50% cheaper to produce than the 993, and I doubt the current 99 whatever it is, is anything like the 993 was.
As an old fecker, I have experience of the various eras.
The 70s were largely badly built, save for the prestige brands like Mercedes which were very well built but you paid for it. Fords, Fiats, BL, all rusted away and weld-on sills and filler was very much the order of the day. Strikes and unions didn't help. I spent an awful lot of my time with filler, primer, rattle cans and hacking rust from the cars. Bottoms fell out of doors, windows dropped...yuk.
The 80s had better designed cars with computer assistance to stop mud traps, better cavity injection and so forth. Much better, in general, than 70s cars, possibly a backlash to the Russian steel scandal when many cars dissolved. I had a series of cars like the Saab 900, R5 GT Turbo and what seemed like a hewn from solid Scirocco GTI but I dare say they have all gone to the scrapyard. I stripped a 1986 Corolla and was very impressed by the quality of fasteners and plastic clips etc even if the metal wasn't great.
The 90s hit a hiccup and I think quality went down - I had a 96 Golf GTI which is one of the most unreliable cars I ever owned and after 10 years, it was really scabby underneath and while the steel body was very solid, it seems the floorpan was anything but. I think many corners were cut because people were cottoning onto over-inflated prices - you may recall a brief period in either the late 80s or early 90s where people were going to Europe and ordering RHD cars and importing them at lesser cost.
The Noughties definitely proved an upturn. Vastly better durability on bodywork, in general. I had a 2007 Fiesta ST that still looked new after 8 years and my ex's 2009 Mondeo, bought new, still looks great now and she barely washes it. You still see plenty of cars that still look in great condition and you have to remind yourself how old some of them are.
My 2013 Fiesta ST is OK and not old enough to draw any conclusions from but it's not a car I would want to work on myself and some areas suggest worse quality than my 2007 ST. However, compared to the 70s, it's a totally different world. Modern cars are better because they designed out all the rust traps by CAD and they have plastic wheelarch liners and better drainage etc.
The 70s were largely badly built, save for the prestige brands like Mercedes which were very well built but you paid for it. Fords, Fiats, BL, all rusted away and weld-on sills and filler was very much the order of the day. Strikes and unions didn't help. I spent an awful lot of my time with filler, primer, rattle cans and hacking rust from the cars. Bottoms fell out of doors, windows dropped...yuk.
The 80s had better designed cars with computer assistance to stop mud traps, better cavity injection and so forth. Much better, in general, than 70s cars, possibly a backlash to the Russian steel scandal when many cars dissolved. I had a series of cars like the Saab 900, R5 GT Turbo and what seemed like a hewn from solid Scirocco GTI but I dare say they have all gone to the scrapyard. I stripped a 1986 Corolla and was very impressed by the quality of fasteners and plastic clips etc even if the metal wasn't great.
The 90s hit a hiccup and I think quality went down - I had a 96 Golf GTI which is one of the most unreliable cars I ever owned and after 10 years, it was really scabby underneath and while the steel body was very solid, it seems the floorpan was anything but. I think many corners were cut because people were cottoning onto over-inflated prices - you may recall a brief period in either the late 80s or early 90s where people were going to Europe and ordering RHD cars and importing them at lesser cost.
The Noughties definitely proved an upturn. Vastly better durability on bodywork, in general. I had a 2007 Fiesta ST that still looked new after 8 years and my ex's 2009 Mondeo, bought new, still looks great now and she barely washes it. You still see plenty of cars that still look in great condition and you have to remind yourself how old some of them are.
My 2013 Fiesta ST is OK and not old enough to draw any conclusions from but it's not a car I would want to work on myself and some areas suggest worse quality than my 2007 ST. However, compared to the 70s, it's a totally different world. Modern cars are better because they designed out all the rust traps by CAD and they have plastic wheelarch liners and better drainage etc.
New cars are "better" new, but very definitely not built to last very long. In the sense that many non-wear components and materials (latter mostly due to legislation) just won't last indefinitely, and will be very difficult to replace or fix when parts supplies dry up, or well before that due to "uneconomic repair" considerations.
Older cars were more "screwed together" in the literal sense so yes definitely more prone to (again literally) stuff coming unscrewed than as with today's integral, undisassembleable sub-assy construction method, but on the flip side you could generally repair whatever needed repairing, by hook or by crook.
I think that "peak car" was probably the 1990s for many brands in terms of both reliability and also very long term survival prospects.
But, who cares, which is exactly why we get cheap "better" cars today that will be completely disposable within 15 years.
Older cars were more "screwed together" in the literal sense so yes definitely more prone to (again literally) stuff coming unscrewed than as with today's integral, undisassembleable sub-assy construction method, but on the flip side you could generally repair whatever needed repairing, by hook or by crook.
I think that "peak car" was probably the 1990s for many brands in terms of both reliability and also very long term survival prospects.
But, who cares, which is exactly why we get cheap "better" cars today that will be completely disposable within 15 years.
Yep had a mk2 golf with 180k and still strong as an ox when i sold it.
Granted moden cars are more complex but common parts that used to be steel now plastic. Pretty stunned to find the waterpump housing on my brothers octavia vrs is plastic which cracked twice. Engines are pretty highly strung due to emission rules.
Granted moden cars are more complex but common parts that used to be steel now plastic. Pretty stunned to find the waterpump housing on my brothers octavia vrs is plastic which cracked twice. Engines are pretty highly strung due to emission rules.
stugolf said:
Without a doubt older cars are better, well the one's I buy anyway.
I have a MK2 Golf Gti 16v and had a MK7 Golf GTD and now a BMW m235i.
Yes the 2 new cars are much more advanced but I do feel the manufacturers have found ways to do it as cheap as possible rather than the "over-engineering" days of the MK2.
I had a 1991 MKII Gold Driver 1.8 and loved it. It was replaced with a 1998 MB2 Civic. The Honda was head a shoulders the better car. The Jazz I have now is better again. I have a MK2 Golf Gti 16v and had a MK7 Golf GTD and now a BMW m235i.
Yes the 2 new cars are much more advanced but I do feel the manufacturers have found ways to do it as cheap as possible rather than the "over-engineering" days of the MK2.
Edited by stugolf on Wednesday 25th April 13:26
Aside from the Golf having better acceleration, the Jazz would catch it eventually, it uses far less fuel, has a longer service interval, much less maintenance, better equipped, quieter, much nicer to drive, more room from what appears to be a smaller footprint.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff