Take it back 40 years

[matchmaker]

Alternators. With a dynamo equipped car you had to turn off any unnecessary electrics when idling (especially at night) or you'd flatten the battery.

[loudlashadjuster]

matchmaker said:

Alternators. With a dynamo equipped car you had to turn off any unnecessary electrics when idling (especially at night) or you'd flatten the battery.

To be pedantic (and maybe also wrong!) I think by the early 70s all cars had alternators anyway?

Happy to be corrected.

[MGgeordie]

The ugliness/blandness

[LuS1fer]

CrutyRammers said:

Really? I recall "car won't start" or "Mum's flooded the engine" being a fairly common thing in the 70s/80s. Never had to spray the leads with WD40, check for moisture in the dizzy cap or give the points a quick clean to get things going? All pretty common in my motoring yoof...

No. The odd misfires were normal but undoubtedly down to cheap HT leads fitted by me (remember the ones you boought off a roll and were secured by a screw? Nearly all my cars were old too.

Austin A40 and Mini 1000 - reliable, main issue was rust. The A40 went on long after the battery was f*cked too.
Cortina Mk II - coil failure once but easy to push-start - main issue was rust.
Viva 1800 - that did go wrong after the cambelt snapped but that's a maintenance lesson. Clutch cable snapped but so did my Golf GTI's. Cambelt went on my Corolla.
Cortina Mk I - reliable bar a thermostat cap needed replacing.
Alfasud Ti - OK, this one regularly had issues starting.
Alfetta - totally reliable
Chevette/Imp - both reliable.

I suspect there was rather less maintenance going on in the 70s. Most people didn't bother. Flooding was also largely self-induced. It was usually Fords that didn't start though.

[Devil2575]

davepoth said:

V88Dicky said:

The speed and power, surely?

1973 2.0 Cortina, 85 hp ish

2013 2.0 Mondeo, 140+

And double MPG?

Mind you, cars are twice as heavy now

Nah. The 0-60 would be about the same, the real world MPG too. As above, the obvious thing is the ridiculous size.

No it would not.

A 2 litre pinto back in 73 would probably struggle to better 25 mpg on a run and 0-60 would be less.

[Devil2575]

davepoth said:

I'm not so sure. I have a 1973 1.8 four door saloon from BL, which does roughly 33mpg on a run and 0-60 in ten and change. I also have a 2003 1.8 four door saloon from BL, which does roughly 33mpg on a run and 0-60 in ten and change.

Really?

What 1973 BL car are you refering too?

Either you had a very good 1973 car or a very poor 2003 car or they are not comparable in terms of size.

[Devil2575]

DervVW said:

MissChief said:

So change it to taking a whole car back. Which car would you take and, more importantly, who would you give it to? Would you taker a Peugeot 307 back and show Peugeot and say in a very stern voice 'NEVER!'?

Would you take a VW Golf back and give it to BL and say 'This is what you have to fight against. Get rid of the Unions or face bankruptcy'?

Def take the golf to BL and say sort it out.... maybe show them something from Japan or Korea too and say get they reliability but add some soul

It wouldn't work.

The management were too stupid and pigheaded to see the error of their ways back then.

[anonymous-user]

The real world "roll-on" performance was also woeful back then. Engines struggling to put out even 75Nm/l, assuming they were in-tune! (which most weren't - no adaptive self monitoring ECU's back then).

[Devil2575]

GetCarter said:

LuS1fer said:

CrutyRammers said:

The fact that a modern car starts, first time, every time, whatever the weather.
No long minutes of cranking and teasing and pumping while trying not to flood it.

I've had about 30 cars from 1963 onewards and that has never ever been an issue save in a VW Variant.

Blimey. You're a lucky man. Hardly anything started for me in bad weather in the 1970s!

I remember fun and games trying to get my Dad's Chevette started when we were on holiday. It did not like being sat outside in heavy rain.

[aarondbs]

Xaero said:

Depends what car you're taking back. A Tesla or Prius or G-wizz will show that we have moved on a bit from the internal combustion engine.

Not sure that I have, nor any one I know....

I would think that they might be surprised how little has changed, still drive using the same controls etc....

[Chiswickboy]

Sump said:

Fridges
Lane Keep assist
Active Cruise Control
Rear View camera

While two of these were not possible because of the technology of the time (your smart phone will have more computing power than LEO (J Lyons and Company's computer system) which took up the basement of their office block, and a 'fridge was possible but considered a frivolity, the rear view camera was a reality, although you had to have quite a bit of "wedge" to afford the hand built "designer" car it came in. Cannot remember much about it(way back in 1968)other than it was a mid-blue colour, very low, mid-engined and had a camera and display in place of a rear view mirror because of the height of the engine cover. It was certainly out of my league as all I could afford then was a second hand Mini van but it felt like a sportscar after my Morris Minor.

[Hasbeen]

GetCarter said:

Reliability. Most cars 40 years ago regularly broke down. Oh and yes, the brakes were crap.

I don't know about that. My 59/60 Simca Aronde did 160,000 miles with just a brake rebuild, & never stopped once. Not only was it's handling much more fun than my lady's new Ford Fiesta, it was ergonomically much better, & a nicer place to be.