Old vs new cars

What are the differences between old cars from the 60s and 70s and newer ones from 80s and 90s in terms of build quality? I know it is a somewhat unusual question. I am considering a 90s vehicle like Chevy Caprice or an early 70s one like any mopar with a 318 or 383 engine. Assuming I can find one in good shape. I realize these are worlds apart. In general, can the older cars get as many miles as new ones? We don't have any long term data on new cars. But I hear people say that 90s cars can easily go for 100K miles in a very short time without major maintenance. I know older ones can do that too but do they need more repairs? If I get, say, 1970 Plymouth Belvedere, how many years can I get out of it? Will it last indefinitely like some say?

I like low-tech cars because they are a bit easier to fix by myself. Try replacing the water pump on a 70s mopar as opposed on 90s Honda. a 90s car has to be jacked up. But I am not really sure about the big picture.

Maybe this will help, The older cars tended to have larger engines that put out less HP per cubic inch (excluding muscle cars). IMHO an engine that has to work less (the bigger of the two) would be less prone to failure then one that was running at peak most of the time. An example I'll give is all those Chrysler minivans with the little engines that I see each day smoking like a chiminy. Also your point about easier access to parts on the engine to work on it is important. One more point, parts availability in remote areas, you would have an easier time finding a distributor cap in Nowheresville USA for a 383 then a ignition computer for Chevy, cheaper too.

Newer cars seem to come into the shop for MAJOR engine work in the 50-75K area alot.

Any car can do 100K in a few years. but will be a come plete wreck in 7-10

If you treat it right, change the oil and fix some of the last owners mistakes yes it will.

Currently the 'shop Car' is a 66 Olds wagon.It runs every day, 390,000 miles on it.

Specific models may vary, but in general:

New cars have much better rust protection from the factory.

New cars have electronic ignitions that require almost no maintenance. OTOH, if they do fail, they cost a lot more than a set of points and condensor.

Ditto with fuel injection as compared to carbs.

New cars have MUCH better brakes.

Metallurgy is much better. Properly maintained, I'd expect the engine in a newer car to go much farther between overhauls.

New cars pollute much less, but cat converters are expensive if they do fail.

New cars generally get much better gas mileage than 70s equivilents.

New cars generally have more comfortable seats, at least in front.

OTOH...

70s cars are much easier to work on, but simply because of age, if nothing else, are going to need more work.

70s cars are likely to have bigger trunks.

SOME 70s cars will have more interior room than newer equivilents.

While newer cars may make as much power, there's nothing quite like the low end torque of old V8.

My 2 cents worth...

You posted this question about a year ago.

You didn't like my answers then, so I wont repeat them.

You can get electronic ignition kits for old points/condensor cars for about $100. I've used 'em, so have friends. They are rock solid and haven't failed anyone I know yet. More power, better gas mileage, a good deal all around. I'm not arguing with the point above, just telling you there's a good upgrade path for old cars.

Not familiar with new FI systems, but the early ones still allowed for some tweaking and metering of air into the system...

Hmm, my old BMW's have _great_ brakes - front disk rear drum on my '69 1600 and 4wheel disks on the '74 Bavaria - possibly exceptional for the time, but they both feel like they brake as well as new generic rental cars I've had...of course the 1600 only weighs 2000 lbs and is fairly over-braked :^)

Also interesting to note that I've heard there is not an inherent improvement in disks vs. drums except in terms of cooling and brake fade...old 356's had _huge_ drum brakes with duplex wheel cylinders in the front (two of 'em pushing out at leading edges of both shoes) and brought those cars down from speed _really_ well.

That said, in general I agree that new brakes are a lot better - materials and technology. And I think ABS is really cool, though it may convince drivers to put themselves in otherwise-foolish positions :^)

I'd buy that, though some of the points about low-loading of big V8's vs. high-revving I4's make me wonder if it's not moot - metallurgy is better, but we build less margin into today's high-output engines. All I have on this is anecdotal and one guy's opinion.

Another point - new cars _in general_ pollute much less, but when they have pollution control or ignition problems, they tend to pollute _much more_...old cars may pollute more even when well-maintained, but they degrade gracefully and put out a bit more pollutants when out of tune. New cars are _very polluting_ and it's often hard to tell when there is a problem with exhaust gases...

Impressively so, most of the time. All that engine mgmt stuff really allows efficient fuel burning at a wider range of conditions than good old open-loop carbuerated stuff.

Yeah, but I've been impressed with the use of space in some of these new cars - new Taurus has a lot of trunk and rear seat room for a car its size.

Well, you are right, and I can appreciate a good V8, though I find I tend to own small displacement high-output engines instead ;^)

A good post, just added some of my own opinions and experiences.

If you can afford it and enjoy it - go for the old cars!!

Scott '74 BMW Bavaria '71 BMW 2002 '69 BMW 1600 '61 Porsche 356B S-90

You hear on occasion that the size of the net doubles approx. every 100 days. Gotta figure there are plenty more folks here now than a year ago. Even your doctor will suggest that you get a second opinion. Terry

I remember the post. Only you can decide what you want. A daily driver that doesn't care to get wet, or a nice 70's muscle car to go to cruise nights, get lunch, and buy stamps. An older vehicle may require repairs, where a new vehicle should need only PM. Buy something rediculous like a K-5 Blazer. Works good, lasts a long time. Ours only

lives to plow. I have four trucks and a car, so I drive how I feel! Gotta Love repair tags!

There is a lot of validity in this.

Yeah, it is quite a ride. How easy is it to change the water pump on Chevy Impala?

Thanks for the interesing reply. These are all good points. I think the bottom line for me is simply serviceability. If I can change major parts like for instance the water pump and the fuel injectors on 90s full size vehicle (what I am looking for) as easily as the water pump and carburator on a 70s full size boat, I will get the 90s one.

Do you mean metallurgy as in - metal that the car is made or metal used in the engine or both?

They both have advantages and disadvantages, summed up as follows: (NOTE, these are one man's opinion and nothing more)

60's and early 70's (74 and older)

Advantages-

-Styling -Simplicity -Immune from smog tests in most states -Safety -Power, response -Durability of major components -More fun to drive

Disadvantages- -Rust -Need more maintianance -Neglect or abuse by prior owners -Gas mileage (although not nearly as bad as you may have been led to believe) -No cup holders <g>

Late model cars

Advantages-

Short term durability Better brakes Better gas mileage Factory sound systems much improved

Disadvantages-

-Service and repair are for all intents and purposes impossible for the do it yourselfer -Too many gadgets, needless complexity -Airbags (worlds most dangerous 'safety' device) -Annoymous styling -Three words, 'daytime running lights'

In short, if you can find a nice 60's/70's car with not much rust that hasn't been beat on, BUY IT! You'll be glad you did.

-Marty 'What the hell is a jigawatt' p.s.- are you the same IIya who started the 'whats the worst car you ever owned?' thread in alt.autos.chrysler? That was great reading.....