Andre you sound about my age so you might remember that through that entire time there was the concern that at anytime the Soviets were going to drop the big one on us and there was no hope.
Well, I was born in 1970. Conceived in 1969 (which is where the "1969" in my ID comes from :P ) I remember as a kid being really scared of killer bees. And that Iran hostage crisis was a pretty scary time. And I think "The Day After" scared the hell out of a lot of us kids in the early 80's!
I guess we kinda knew the 70's were going to suck when the decade started off with a bigot and a dingbat sitting down in front of a piano and singing about how Kate Smith really sang a song, hair was short and skirts were long, and we don't know just what went wrong, "Those were the days!"
That period in time really did start to seem nostalgic for the old days. There was "American Graffiti", "Happy Days", "Laverne and Shirley". And even "Three's Company" tried to make you think back to a simpler time, when life is a ball again, laughter is calling for you. Down at our Rendezvous. :P
Buying American Cars: What Does It Mean? Let's see??? Always having to say your sorry?
Seriously folks, there is no real American car to buy. Or is there. Possibly a Corvette? What about the parts. I guess the real answer to the question is, " it means you have taken countless hours or days of research to find a Ford or GM car with 100% domestic content." Now what is the result. They take the money and spend it on plants and investments in other countries. Hard to win this game.
There are several cars which I am look into buying from the big two American based companies. As for buying American, who knows what real percent goes where, and how many man hours, and revenues in taxes go to USA? Will buy the best car. The Fusion is made in Mexico and seems to be OK in the JD Powers Initial Quality Survey. And some Canadian made cars are doing well in reliability. And then there are those made in USA, like the Sonata, which has a good record for reliability. The auto industry, like most, is a world based one. We compete - they compete within a world market. Will people buy a car made in a communist county? Now that is another issue. -Loren
"We compete - they compete within a world market. Will people buy a car made in a communist county?"
We buy Cuban cigars and vodka was popular before the fall of USSR. And more to the point, we buy a billion things that are made in China every day and think nothing of it. We're also plenty happy to buy clothes and other stuff made by workers who don't get decent working conditions or wages.
And it's not complicated to figure out where a company's revenues go - though it IS hard to find the data. But all you have to do is look at where the company spends money on facilities, wages, and manufactured supplies, and there you go! Another matter to consider is whether or not to count Ford Europe (for example) as a separate company. Do some of their revenues come here? When Ford North America is losing money, I expect so. (And I expect that some of Honda and Nissan's American operations are supporting their Japanese operations, since that market's been pretty bad lately.)
"A car made in the 50's will probably hold up better in an accident than a modern car, and, if parts were more readily available, would most likely be cheaper to fix. However, that doesn't mean that the occupants would hold up better!"
Yeah, I agree. Less car damage, more personal damage. (I'd expect even low speed collisions were worse for a person's body, with greater chances of hitting your head against something and less whiplash protection.)
But even my old '80s Celica seemed solid compared to more modern cars. My brother got hit in a parking lot by some small mid-90s sedan - an Escort or some other domestic, I couldn't tell - and the sedan's nose crumpled beyond repair. (It happened at 10-15mph.) The Celica got a 4"-wide, 1"-deep dent in its side.
andre1969: I remember as a kid being really scared of killer bees. And that Iran hostage crisis was a pretty scary time. And I think "The Day After" scared the hell out of a lot of us kids in the early 80's!
As someone who was born in the 1960s and grew up in the 1970s, I remember being scared by...Bea Arthur bellowing at her wimpy hubby, bosomy daughter and anyone else who crossed her path.
That, and the fear that we may run out of gas, because of the first gas shortage. I remember being very worried that I would never drive because there wouldn't be any gas left.
I eventually learned to drive on my father's 1973 AMC Gremlin...on second thought, maybe it would have been better if we HAD run out of gas! :P
...about the fuel shortage of the 1970s is my father cursing like Tony Soprano every time he filled up his 1972 Ford LTD with Texaco "Fire Chief" gasoline at a downtown filling station. I think I was more afraid of my Dad's anger than any prospect of running out of fuel in the future. We kids kept our mouths shut and were on our best behavior when Dad went to the gas station during 1973-75. Prior to that, it was actually a pleasant experience and the attendant was a funny guy who kept us kids entertained. Even he became very serious during that dark time.
I remember seeing "The Day After" as a freshman in college. All the guys from the floor in the dorm were gathered in front of the TV to catch this show. I remember the end of the show the voice of the president comes over the radio and sounds just like Ronald Reagan.
My cousin bought a wrecked 1956 Chev (black and yellow for the knowledgeable). Head on or tree, can't recall. But the car was so stiff it was easily rebuild. However that stiffness meant the occupants had a much high differential velocity with the car before they met something that started slowing them down. In this case, there were two knee imprints in the metal base of the dashboard, big ones. I have no idea what happened to the driver, but that had to hurt.
yes the 55 chevy, hell just about anything made before 1970 was stronger, you where less likely to get killed from the steering wheel punching through the back of the drivers seat or the drivers door bending all the way over the the passenger seat, the car had enough mass and steel that you rarely had to worry about parts of the car crushing you because the car collapsed like an empty beer can.
...my Dad told me a story about when he rear-ended a 1963 Ford Galaxie with his 1955 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Starfire convertible. The trunk of the Galaxie crumpled like an accordion whereas his Olds suffered a small dent in the bumper. Those '50s GM'ers were tough in the back too! A co-worker of mine's father had a 1956 Buick Special that was rear-ended by a woman in a 1964 Chevrolet Malibu. The Malibu needed to be towed, but the Special left the scene on its own power with a slightly bent rear bumper. I wonder what would happen if a 2004 Malibu hit a 1956 Buick Special? That modern Malibu would probably disintegrate into atoms.
I wonder what would happen if a 2004 Malibu hit a 1956 Buick Special? --end quote--
Depends on how fast of course. But at say 40 MPH, the air bags inflated, the seat belts tighten, you crash, then step out of the car. Cars built after 1967 have at least some of the needed safety items. Those built prior to '68 are less safe. The current day is the safest and it shows in the number of death per million miles traveled. I would rather have myself surviving a crash than my car. -Loren
I wandered onto this form from my usual home on the "mystery car" site (which I would recommend). I am British, living in London, and have heard the same arguments as you are having now somewhere before - - - here. In the 1950's and 60's we were exporting large numbers of (small) cars to you guys, second only to VW, and as we were filling a niche you probably didn't mind. (You didn't make many MG or Triumph rivals). In Britain we had a protected market in the 60's and Brit cars were generally quite successful - some like Austin/Morris Minis were world beaters. Then we met the Japanese. We already had opening doors to European cars, because we were lowering tariffs to join what later became the EU. But it wasn't that the Japanese did anything underhand to get into our markets - they just made cars that had more showroom appeal and more features straight out of the box. OK, they rusted, but, hey, so did ours, so we were used to that, and anyway, we buy Fiat, etc, so what do we know? Dynamically Japanese cars were inferior at that time, but most car buyers aren't enthusiasts, they just want the motoring equivalent of a fridge - switch it on and forget it, for years. The Japanese cars did that well, and what did our industry do in response? Well our leading company then was Brit.Leyland, and they started to introduce more lemons than winners - ever seen an Austin Allegro/ Morris Marina/ Ambassador / etc... When we stopped buying them they said we were unpatriotic, but they were rubbish (mostly) and a company building lemons gets squashed. Our other Brit owned domestic giant was Rootes group -(Hillman/Sunbeam/Humber/Singer) and they sold out to Chrysler in the late 60's and at the same time started to make lemons too. Our other big car groups were Ford - here since 1911 and outselling nearly everybody else - and Vauxhall - GM owned since 1926. They made more popular cars - certainly Ford did - but we were by then European, for all sorts of reasons - mostly good from Britains point of view (small fish getting into bigger pond) but meanwhile the Japanese and then the Koreans were coming in strongly. Now, you can buy BMW Minis, built in Britain but with about 60% foreign parts, Rover (ex B Leyland) has gone - they are setting up a plant in China to remake some of the last horrors - Ford no longer makes Ford brand cars in Britain (just vans and tractors) but of course they have Land Rover and Jaguar, Chrysler sold out eventually to Peugeot, who have just announced they will stop car producion in Britain in 2007, and Vauxhall have threatened to close their last plant here (note how we think of Ford, Chrysler/peugeot and GM Vauxhall as domestic? You can buy a Ford car made almost anywhere in Europe except UK - Vauxhall made in Spain, or Slovakia, or even Japan (we used to get Fronteras/Troopers that were Isuzus) but on the other hand we make Nissan in Sunderland, Toyota in Derby, Honda in Swindon, we even export some of those to Japan ( we drive on the same side, which probably helps) so what goes around. You can buy cars here from India - small Suzukis and also Tata jeeps, while from Korea we get Chevrolet (ex Daywoo), Hyundai, Kia, etc...and from Malaysia - Proton, BMW from USA MBenz from USA(4x4's) etc,... If your domestic manufacturers make lemons you won't buy them....
one thing that the '56 Buick would have going for it is bulk. I think one of those would outweigh a Malibu by a good 800 pounds or more. Also consider that the Malibu is designed to crumple, whereas the Buick wasn't.
When something that's designed to crumple runs into something else that's designed to crumple, the world is at harmoney. And when something that's designed to crumple runs into something that's not going to move, like a decent-sized tree or a bridge abutment, it usually comes off better than something that's not designed to crumple.
However, in the case of the Special versus the Malibu, well, that's more akin to taking the tree or the bridge abutment (I'm not including telephone poles here because they will snap if something big enough hits them) and hitting the car with it!
Then there's the physics of the deceleration involved. IIRC, it goes something like this. If two 4,000 pound objects travelling at 60 mph hit each other, head-on, then theoretically they cancel each other out and will both stop dead at the point of impact.
However, if a 4,000 pound object and a 2,000 pound object, both going 60 mph, hit head-on, I think the 4,000 lb object gets slowed down to 30 mph, while the 2,000 lb object would be traveling 30 mph in the opposite direction! So total deceleration for the big car in this case would only be 30 mph, versus 90 for the small one!
At least, I think that's how it works. I know that if the 2000 lb car got up to 120 mph and hit the 4000 lb car doing 60 mph, they would both stop dead at the point of impact. Of course, this accounts for only mass and speed, and doesn't take into account the energy lost from friction, gravity, crumpling, etc.
Now the difference between a Malibu and a '56 Special isn't THAT bad. More like 3200 lb versus 4000. But still, that means the Special weighs 25% more, which will partially compensate for its lack of safety features.
Now here I was talking about a head-on collision. The dynamics of a lighter, "softer" car hitting a big, heavy car are totally different. In this case, weight and an inability to crumple work in your favor. A 2004 Malibu probably weighs about as much as a 1964 Malibu, but is much softer. No doubt it would've crumpled up worse than its 64 counterpart, and probably did less damage to the '56 Special. And if the '64 hitting it didn't hurt the Special's driver, chances are the '04 would be even less likely.
However, the driver of the '04 Malibu, while crying over his totaled car, would still probably stand a better chance of surviving or not sustaining an injury than the driver of the '64. So if the '64 driver didn't get hurt, I doubt that the '04 driver would, either. Maybe some airbag burns, though.
Actually after the collision they'd be going 20mph in the direction of the heavier car, if they weight 4000lbs and 2000lbs respectively. But that's only if they stick together like glue without any deformation. I have no idea how to account for real-life factors... in class it sounded like it had to be empirically.
On the rest I totally agree; the Special would benefit from the other car's crush zone in that specific kind of crash, but in a crash against an immobile object (much more common), the Special is a liability to the driver.
(BTW, if the 3200lb Malibu hit a 4000lb Special at 60mph each, and they stuck to each other without deformation, they'd end up traveling at 6.67mph.)
Depending on the speed the Buick driver dies or goes to the hospital for major surgery while the Malibu driver goes home to dinner and looks for a new car.
The problem with many new cars is that the passenger area does not remain intact, I have seen cars that had the dash pressed into the seatbacks, have seen drivers door where the passenger seat should have been, many fatalities in new cars are happening because the people get crushed by parts of the car. On many new cars the windows are part of the structure for the roof, if the window are intact the roof will not collapse, but break the glass and the roof will collapse. the ford tempo I had had the unibody pre crushed under the drivers seat to provide a crumple zone, I have no idea what idiot thought a crumple zone in the passenger area was a good idea. go look in wreaking yards at cars and see how many new cars have intact passenger areas after a wreck.
If I was going to be hit by a suv or pickup I would rather be in something made in the 50 - 60 era than one of these new american cars, car I drive right now weighs about 4,200 lbs has a cast iron engine steel double wishbone heavy steel door hinges not the crappy bent sheet metal you see on many new cars, and one I found in junk yard that had been hit in the front you could still open and close all the doors. US government crash standard is 2.5mph Insurance company crash tests at 5mph did over $8,000.00 damage on a couple vehicles, one crash video hitting a concrete post like those around fire hydrants at 5mph backing up had the rear side windows shatter rear window shatter roof buckle and doors bind up the vehicle sustained about $8,700.00 in damages, is this something you really want to be in when your in an accident at highway speeds. Yes vehicles need to crumple some to absorb impacts but they should also be able to remain undamaged at 5mph and the passenger ares should never under any reason crumple the roof should remain intact when the vehicle flips and should never rely on glass for strength, if you run a car into the side of any vehicle it should keep the car out of the passenger area, I have seen cars that had the a pillar and door bent to the center of the car, the driver died because he was crushed by his door.
"About the only things I think I'd miss about 2006 is VCRs, DVDs, and the Internet. You can pretty much flush everything else. The cars suck, the music sucks, movies suck, fashion sucks, and people are pessimistic about the future."
Dude 1955? I agree music has gone down the toilet the last 10 years. Blame the generation Yers and the Britney Spears Craze of 1999 for that. Generation X had better music than Generation Y has no doubt. Why do you care about driving a muscle car. You drive a Buick. Its not like the Corvette is defunct or something Chevy still sells it.
"One can talk about the advances in civil rights since 1955, but it seems the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X have been squandered. I wonder what these great men would think of the self-loathing self-destructive gangsta culture that pervades today's inner cities?"
Dude there has been gangsta culture for years. the Rap group NWA was out in 1989 with the CD Straigh Outta Compton back then talking about the Gangsta life. Gangsta Culture is not a 2006 thing.
"Back in 1955 Americans respected everything American and were proud to be citizens of the USA. Now, too many of them go out of there way to condemn everything American and act ashamed to be citizens of this country."
I disagree with that paragraph totally. I do think people are proud to be in this country. Besides you were born in 1965 right and you grew up through the disco and new wave era's. Your making well like it was so much better than but me myself born in 1979 I don;t think it was all that good in the 50's either.
About the 2006 cars sucking I disagree with that. There are many cars that I like like Mazda, some Nissans, and Chrysler products look interesting too although I wouldn't buy one.
Interesting. Statistics show otherwise. There are fewer and fewer fatalities with modern day cars. If the cars are all compressing to a state as you say, then people must be getting sturdier, as less injury and death occurs in modern cars a trucks with all the new safety devices, and crumple zones. -Loren
Just one final note. While the extra weight and size of a vehicle may work to an advantage in a wreck, you must also consider if everyone, like the old days, had cars as big and heavy. Two heavy cars with no safety devices were one hell of a crash, say head on. Instead of making all cars heavy again, or as large as an SUV you are better off with safe lighter cars, or smart designs like on Mercedes largest cars which have a softer zone to aid in survival of the other car, a mid range which is stiffer and a final tuffest zone to stop the heaviest impact. But two tanks coming together will kill both tanks. A tank, like an SUV is twice as likely to injure or kill those in the other car. Not good.
BTW, if you are looking for an new American large car which does well in crash testing, the new Lucerne, LaCrosse and DTS scored well. The Ford Five Hundred did well. -Loren
check fatality stats at each speed. problem with the numbers is they only cover what is reported, find a break down on fatality rate by type of accident and speed, look for cause and also look at injuries. if you compare new car and old car hitting same thing like a telephone pole you will see that people in new cars have greater injuries.
the problem is many new cars do not have a hardened area to protect the people like the Mercedes. I have seen someone killed in a roll over, their head was crushed by the roof , they where still belted in the seats.
My daily drive is a Fiat, not even an Italian one - mine was made in Poland. I don't know about futile, though - it does everything I ask of it and uses less fuel than a lawnmower, so I don't care about the cost of fuel (£0.93 per litre here in London).Sure I wouldn't want to be in an accident with a truck, but who would?
The awful FIAT's and Renaults of the 70's left many Americans with a very bad taste in their mouths for French and Italian cars, which is one reason why you no longer find Renault, Peugeot, Citroen and FIAT in the US market.
I've driven a FIAT in Europe, and I was pleasantly surprised by the driving experience and balance of fuel economy and performance. They may not be up to Toyota standard, but they are far more reliable today than they once were, you just won't find them in the US.
I owned a 1954 Chrysler New Yorker and it was built like a tank. If they had put seat belts and maybe an air bag or two on those cars of the 50's, hardly anyone would have gotten killed.
Another thing about them, they were beautiful. Many were two tone, some even had three tone paint, with lots of chrome. Some of the best looking cars America ever made. Two of my favorites was the 1955 Ford Crown Victoria and 1957 Chevy.
all this talk about weight as a 'safety' feature - ignores what is really the greatest improvements in vehicles of all types - the ability to avoid an accident. A friend of mine uses a '65 289 Mustang as a daily driver and it is a deathtrap. A rebodied and overpowered '64 Falcon, weighs about 2800 lbs., and won't stop (drums) or handle - it is a wonder that we survived. Buying a car by the pound would have us all in pickups and larger SUVS. And they would certainly be more dangerous hitting stationary objects for no other reason that impact force is equal to mass (weight) multiplied by acceleration combined with the fact that that same vehicle size impedes that vehicle's ability to avoid the accident in the first place. Do they 'win' in head-to-head collisions - certainly - and a foundation for consumer group campaigns against them. But the contention that anything made in 1956 is in any way safer than even something as crappy as the current Malibu - is ludricrous.
I agree about weight being subordinate to handling and a capable driver to reduce/avoid accidents. I'm curious about the Mustang. I had a 67 with heavy duty suspension and it didn't even lean in a corner at 25 mph. It handled great because of that. The only thing you didn't do was slam on the brakes and turn; you don't want to do that with the majority of FWD cars today either.
A friend of mine uses a '65 289 Mustang as a daily driver and it is a deathtrap. A rebodied and overpowered '64 Falcon, weighs about 2800 lbs., and won't stop (drums) or handle - it is a wonder that we survived.
One thing that you have to remember is that when cars like that were the norm, people knew how to drive them. We have been dumbed down considerably over the decades. If you take a person who's actually USED to driving something like a '65 Mustang, he/she isn't going to be as much of a danger to himself or others than if you take someone who's been dumbed down by driving the cars of today.
Drum brakes will usually lock up more easily than disc brakes, and they're more prone to fading, although the better ones will still give you a few good, hard panic stops before the fade shows up. Oddly though, it was harder for me to lock up the drum brakes in my '68 Dart than the all-disc brakes in my 2000 Intrepid!
Tires also make a world of difference. Does your friend have bias-ply tires on his Mustang? I had radials on my Darts, fairly low-profile 70-series, and they improved handling considerably.
But the contention that anything made in 1956 is in any way safer than even something as crappy as the current Malibu - is ludricrous.
It really depends on the type of accident. For instance, a 1956 Buick might be strong enough to snap a telephone pole like a twig, whereas a 2004 Malibu might just fold around it. Or in a t-bone accident, the Malibu's passenger cabin might get compromised more than the Special's would. Now yeah, in most respects, I'd say the Malibu would be safer. But never say never.
weight is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to maneuverability. You also have to consider weight distribution, suspenion, tires, the power of the engine to be able to accelerate past a given danger, or the ability of the brakes to stop in time. All of that really has more of a bearing on handling and performance than simply weight.
Now one thing that can't be changed, is that a bigger vehicle does present a bigger target to be hit. If you're in the intersection and suddenly see someone running a red light and coming right at you full-tilt, even if you're in a big, fast car, you still might not be able to get your car completely out of the way quicker than someone in a small, slow car.
Exactly right on the tires. I had Michelins (Sears) with tubes in them on my 67. I did learn too not to put snow tires on and drive carelessly; when it snowed and I wanted to go a distance I just put the snow tires on then took them off for clear roads. It took less than 30 minutes.
I wouldn't want to count on snapping the pole either. If you hit the forward brace on the frame that held the bumper and the pole was normal size, it might get a sharp enough force to snap; hit a softer area and the forces are low and the car stops-occupant doesn't until they hit the windshield header and steering wheel and by then the car has slowed down greatly compared to the speed with which the occupant continues.
radials on the Mustang - and is now in the prcoess of switching out the drums with a kit from a Granada - should decrease his stopping distances a good 30 or 40%. And point taken, if you do spend any sort of time in vintage cars like this you do have to be more aware of what's going on - you do have to anticipate situations because that guy in front of you is certainly capable of stopping a lot quicker than you can. Keep in mind that those Mustangs (and many of those 'muscle' cars of that era) had the same sort of weight distribution problem that FWD cars have today.
a car with 4 wheel disc brakes, and every car I now own and will own must have them...the last car I had with rear drums was my 2000 Sable, and I always felt that my braking was compromised...no, I never measured it like they do on C&D TV, but it always seemed to me that 4W disc stops better...no more drums for me, ever...
Would contend to you that there never was a Mustang (or similar vehicle) that "handled great". Mustangs with 60%+ weight over the front wheels, solid rear axles would never keep up (excl. some special hi-performance models) with any relatively well powered FWD or RWD car of today - straight line and especially not on anything with any corners. Back in those days (when I was young and stupid) used to take a great deal of delight blowing off things like Mustangs/GTOs/RRs etc. with my little 80-100 hp (gross)British and Japanese roadsters - as long as they let me pick the road, I could always outcorner and outbrake them. My friend's 289 tested at 8 sec 0-60 and almost 16 sec quarters back in 65, you can do a lot better than that with an Accord V6 today. In a comically continuing tribute to Ford's lack of engineering abilities, the current Mustang still has many of the same problems especially as it applies to that solid rear axle and the understeer created by the front weight bias. These days while that Accord (or TL) etc may have the power and even some of the feel of a sports sedan - they are not. Gotta have something approaching even weight distribution and RWD for that to happen.
Just got back from a 800 mile road trip up into the mountains. quality of new cars was demonstrated in a big dip-hump just around a sweeping curve in a 65mph zone, my car left the ground. I stopped and pulled over to check things, There where other vehicles there 2 where leaking antifreeze and 3 had something bent as the wheels where not straight or lvl,tomorrow I get a free front end check, tires show no unusual wear and didn't pull. I finished my drive others had to be towed.
really have 60+% of the weight on the front wheels?! Even though those compact cars originally were not designed for big, heavy engines, keep in mind that a 289 is actually pretty light-weight, not really much heavier than a Mopar slant six, Chevy inline-6, or the inline-6 used in the bigger Fords.
Also, back then, even if you did have a big engine, usually it was positioned so that the majority of the engine's weight was behind the front axle, which helped balance things out a bit and would mean that some of that weight was spread out to the rear axle. In contrast, many FWD cars have the entire engine, it seems, mounted AHEAD of the front axle! That almost seems like it would make the car nose-heavy, and want to take weight OFF of the rear axle!
The weight distribution on many FWD cars is around 63/37, 65/35, etc. In contrast, most RWD cars were around 55/45. Now maybe something like a '68 Hemi Dart had a weight distribution on par with a modern FWD car, or maybe a Sunbeam Tiger. But even if they did, they'd definitely be an exception to the rule.
I have to agree with you andre. The earliest Mustangs (particularly those with small blocks) were much closer to a 55/45 split than over 60% on the front. Don't know about the FE big blocks though; they may well have been much closer (or over) 60% on the front.
Regarding an earlier comment regard the handling of early Mustangs: true, the standard garden-variety Mustang as it rolled off the Ford lot left a lot to be desired. But these cars could EASILY be vastly improved into very good handling machines. Mustangs of the day had a very good racing history (early Shelby Mustangs in SCCA racing and later in the Trans Am series).
My cousin vintage races a '66 Shelby GT350H which has been set up by Walt Hane (who used to race for Shelby back in the mid-60's). When he open tracks his car at TWS and Motorsports Ranch, he usually has better lap times than C5 Z06 Corvettes. Granted, he has a LOT of time in the car and we are comparing a race car vs. a street car, but I think it says a lot about the POTENTIAL in even the earliest Mustangs.
I think the biggest achilles heel of some of those older cars is the high-profile, skinny, bias-ply tires that most of them had. Now on some cars, I think radial tires can actually start making them handle really screwy, but I've driven a few 60's cars with radials, and it cleans up their handling considerably.
Between a '69 and a '68 Dodge Dart, I racked up over 100,000 miles. And I'm not some old geezer that did it back when these cars were new! :P I bought the '69 in 1989, and the '68 in 1992 when the '69 got wrecked, and it was my main source of transportation until 1997, when I started driving a 1979 Newport that had about 100,000 less miles on it than the Dart, but proved to not be as reliable in the long run.
Both of these cars had 70-series radials, and I never felt at risk for my life when driving them. They handled and cornered well enough for most traffic situations, although I'm sure they wouldn't be so hot in the slalom test! And for just having drum brakes, they rarely got scary unless they got grossly out of adjustment. The '69, with its slant six, just had 9" brakes, but the '68 318 had 10" drums. I always thought they gave decent feedback, but that might be because they were nonpower? I also remember the '68 in particular was almost impossible to lock up, even in wet weather. I know; I tried. Now that's not to say that in a random panic situation I wouldn't be screwed, but I swear I can lock up my Intrepid's brakes before I could lock up that Dart's drums!
Just because they build it here doesn't mean they include U.S. parts. Don't the build cars in SC? Still they manage to keep the domestic content close to 0%.
I prefer my car have atleast 65% american content. I think "content" is more important than the thousand jobs or so that are created from assembly. (even though I value also where my car is made)
Quickie primer: just about everything Nissan sells here is built in the US or Mexico (the 350Z and the Murano being the exceptions), while just about everything Infiniti sells here is built in Japan (the QX56 being the exception).
Comments
Well, I was born in 1970. Conceived in 1969 (which is where the "1969" in my ID comes from :P ) I remember as a kid being really scared of killer bees. And that Iran hostage crisis was a pretty scary time. And I think "The Day After" scared the hell out of a lot of us kids in the early 80's!
I guess we kinda knew the 70's were going to suck when the decade started off with a bigot and a dingbat sitting down in front of a piano and singing about how Kate Smith really sang a song, hair was short and skirts were long, and we don't know just what went wrong, "Those were the days!"
That period in time really did start to seem nostalgic for the old days. There was "American Graffiti", "Happy Days", "Laverne and Shirley". And even "Three's Company" tried to make you think back to a simpler time, when life is a ball again, laughter is calling for you. Down at our Rendezvous. :P
Let's see???
Always having to say your sorry?
Seriously folks, there is no real American car to buy. Or is there. Possibly a Corvette? What about the parts. I guess the real answer to the question is, " it means you have taken countless hours or days of research to find a Ford or GM car with 100% domestic content." Now what is the result. They take the money and spend it on plants and investments in other countries. Hard to win this game.
There are several cars which I am look into buying from the big two American based companies. As for buying American, who knows what real percent goes where, and how many man hours, and revenues in taxes go to USA?
Will buy the best car. The Fusion is made in Mexico and seems to be OK in the JD Powers Initial Quality Survey. And some Canadian made cars are doing well in reliability. And then there are those made in USA, like the Sonata, which has a good record for reliability. The auto industry, like most, is a world based one. We compete - they compete within a world market. Will people buy a car made in a communist county? Now that is another issue.
-Loren
We buy Cuban cigars and vodka was popular before the fall of USSR. And more to the point, we buy a billion things that are made in China every day and think nothing of it. We're also plenty happy to buy clothes and other stuff made by workers who don't get decent working conditions or wages.
And it's not complicated to figure out where a company's revenues go - though it IS hard to find the data. But all you have to do is look at where the company spends money on facilities, wages, and manufactured supplies, and there you go! Another matter to consider is whether or not to count Ford Europe (for example) as a separate company. Do some of their revenues come here? When Ford North America is losing money, I expect so. (And I expect that some of Honda and Nissan's American operations are supporting their Japanese operations, since that market's been pretty bad lately.)
Yeah, I agree. Less car damage, more personal damage. (I'd expect even low speed collisions were worse for a person's body, with greater chances of hitting your head against something and less whiplash protection.)
But even my old '80s Celica seemed solid compared to more modern cars. My brother got hit in a parking lot by some small mid-90s sedan - an Escort or some other domestic, I couldn't tell - and the sedan's nose crumpled beyond repair. (It happened at 10-15mph.) The Celica got a 4"-wide, 1"-deep dent in its side.
As someone who was born in the 1960s and grew up in the 1970s, I remember being scared by...Bea Arthur bellowing at her wimpy hubby, bosomy daughter and anyone else who crossed her path.
That, and the fear that we may run out of gas, because of the first gas shortage. I remember being very worried that I would never drive because there wouldn't be any gas left.
I eventually learned to drive on my father's 1973 AMC Gremlin...on second thought, maybe it would have been better if we HAD run out of gas! :P
I remember seeing "The Day After" as a freshman in college. All the guys from the floor in the dorm were gathered in front of the TV to catch this show. I remember the end of the show the voice of the president comes over the radio and sounds just like Ronald Reagan.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
--end quote--
Depends on how fast of course. But at say 40 MPH, the air bags inflated, the seat belts tighten, you crash, then step out of the car. Cars built after 1967 have at least some of the needed safety items. Those built prior to '68 are less safe. The current day is the safest and it shows in the number of death per million miles traveled. I would rather have myself surviving a crash than my car.
-Loren
In the 1950's and 60's we were exporting large numbers of (small) cars to you guys, second only to VW, and as we were filling a niche you probably didn't mind. (You didn't make many MG or Triumph rivals). In Britain we had a protected market in the 60's and Brit cars were generally quite successful - some like Austin/Morris Minis were world beaters.
Then we met the Japanese. We already had opening doors to European cars, because we were lowering tariffs to join what later became the EU. But it wasn't that the Japanese did anything underhand to get into our markets - they just made cars that had more showroom appeal and more features straight out of the box. OK, they rusted, but, hey, so did ours, so we were used to that, and anyway, we buy Fiat, etc, so what do we know? Dynamically Japanese cars were inferior at that time, but most car buyers aren't enthusiasts, they just want the motoring equivalent of a fridge - switch it on and forget it, for years. The Japanese cars did that well, and what did our industry do in response? Well our leading company then was Brit.Leyland, and they started to introduce more lemons than winners - ever seen an Austin Allegro/ Morris Marina/ Ambassador / etc... When we stopped buying them they said we were unpatriotic, but they were rubbish (mostly) and a company building lemons gets squashed. Our other Brit owned domestic giant was Rootes group -(Hillman/Sunbeam/Humber/Singer) and they sold out to Chrysler in the late 60's and at the same time started to make lemons too.
Our other big car groups were Ford - here since 1911 and outselling nearly everybody else - and Vauxhall - GM owned since 1926. They made more popular cars - certainly Ford did - but we were by then European, for all sorts of reasons - mostly good from Britains point of view (small fish getting into bigger pond) but meanwhile the Japanese and then the Koreans were coming in strongly.
Now, you can buy BMW Minis, built in Britain but with about 60% foreign parts, Rover (ex B Leyland) has gone - they are setting up a plant in China to remake some of the last horrors - Ford no longer makes Ford brand cars in Britain (just vans and tractors) but of course they have Land Rover and Jaguar, Chrysler sold out eventually to Peugeot, who have just announced they will stop car producion in Britain in 2007, and Vauxhall have threatened to close their last plant here (note how we think of Ford, Chrysler/peugeot and GM Vauxhall as domestic? You can buy a Ford car made almost anywhere in Europe except UK - Vauxhall made in Spain, or Slovakia, or even Japan (we used to get Fronteras/Troopers that were Isuzus) but on the other hand we make Nissan in Sunderland, Toyota in Derby, Honda in Swindon, we even export some of those to Japan ( we drive on the same side, which probably helps) so what goes around.
You can buy cars here from India - small Suzukis and also Tata jeeps, while from Korea we get Chevrolet (ex Daywoo), Hyundai, Kia, etc...and from Malaysia - Proton, BMW from USA MBenz from USA(4x4's) etc,...
If your domestic manufacturers make lemons you won't buy them....
When something that's designed to crumple runs into something else that's designed to crumple, the world is at harmoney. And when something that's designed to crumple runs into something that's not going to move, like a decent-sized tree or a bridge abutment, it usually comes off better than something that's not designed to crumple.
However, in the case of the Special versus the Malibu, well, that's more akin to taking the tree or the bridge abutment (I'm not including telephone poles here because they will snap if something big enough hits them) and hitting the car with it!
Then there's the physics of the deceleration involved. IIRC, it goes something like this. If two 4,000 pound objects travelling at 60 mph hit each other, head-on, then theoretically they cancel each other out and will both stop dead at the point of impact.
However, if a 4,000 pound object and a 2,000 pound object, both going 60 mph, hit head-on, I think the 4,000 lb object gets slowed down to 30 mph, while the 2,000 lb object would be traveling 30 mph in the opposite direction! So total deceleration for the big car in this case would only be 30 mph, versus 90 for the small one!
At least, I think that's how it works. I know that if the 2000 lb car got up to 120 mph and hit the 4000 lb car doing 60 mph, they would both stop dead at the point of impact. Of course, this accounts for only mass and speed, and doesn't take into account the energy lost from friction, gravity, crumpling, etc.
Now the difference between a Malibu and a '56 Special isn't THAT bad. More like 3200 lb versus 4000. But still, that means the Special weighs 25% more, which will partially compensate for its lack of safety features.
Now here I was talking about a head-on collision. The dynamics of a lighter, "softer" car hitting a big, heavy car are totally different. In this case, weight and an inability to crumple work in your favor. A 2004 Malibu probably weighs about as much as a 1964 Malibu, but is much softer. No doubt it would've crumpled up worse than its 64 counterpart, and probably did less damage to the '56 Special. And if the '64 hitting it didn't hurt the Special's driver, chances are the '04 would be even less likely.
However, the driver of the '04 Malibu, while crying over his totaled car, would still probably stand a better chance of surviving or not sustaining an injury than the driver of the '64. So if the '64 driver didn't get hurt, I doubt that the '04 driver would, either. Maybe some airbag burns, though.
On the rest I totally agree; the Special would benefit from the other car's crush zone in that specific kind of crash, but in a crash against an immobile object (much more common), the Special is a liability to the driver.
(BTW, if the 3200lb Malibu hit a 4000lb Special at 60mph each, and they stuck to each other without deformation, they'd end up traveling at 6.67mph.)
On many new cars the windows are part of the structure for the roof, if the window are intact the roof will not collapse, but break the glass and the roof will collapse.
the ford tempo I had had the unibody pre crushed under the drivers seat to provide a crumple zone, I have no idea what idiot thought a crumple zone in the passenger area was a good idea.
go look in wreaking yards at cars and see how many new cars have intact passenger areas after a wreck.
US government crash standard is 2.5mph Insurance company crash tests at 5mph did over $8,000.00 damage on a couple vehicles, one crash video hitting a concrete post like those around fire hydrants at 5mph backing up had the rear side windows shatter rear window shatter roof buckle and doors bind up the vehicle sustained about $8,700.00 in damages, is this something you really want to be in when your in an accident at highway speeds.
Yes vehicles need to crumple some to absorb impacts but they should also be able to remain undamaged at 5mph and the passenger ares should never under any reason crumple the roof should remain intact when the vehicle flips and should never rely on glass for strength, if you run a car into the side of any vehicle it should keep the car out of the passenger area, I have seen cars that had the a pillar and door bent to the center of the car, the driver died because he was crushed by his door.
Dude 1955? I agree music has gone down the toilet the last 10 years. Blame the generation Yers and the Britney Spears Craze of 1999 for that. Generation X had better music than Generation Y has no doubt. Why do you care about driving a muscle car. You drive a Buick. Its not like the Corvette is defunct or something Chevy still sells it.
"One can talk about the advances in civil rights since 1955, but it seems the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X have been squandered. I wonder what these great men would think of the self-loathing self-destructive gangsta culture that pervades today's inner cities?"
Dude there has been gangsta culture for years. the Rap group NWA was out in 1989 with the CD Straigh Outta Compton back then talking about the Gangsta life. Gangsta Culture is not a 2006 thing.
"Back in 1955 Americans respected everything American and were proud to be citizens of the USA. Now, too many of them go out of there way to condemn everything American and act ashamed to be citizens of this country."
I disagree with that paragraph totally. I do think people are proud to be in this country. Besides you were born in 1965 right and you grew up through the disco and new wave era's. Your making well like it was so much better than but me myself born in 1979 I don;t think it was all that good in the 50's either.
About the 2006 cars sucking I disagree with that. There are many cars that I like like Mazda, some Nissans, and Chrysler products look interesting too although I wouldn't buy one.
-Loren
Not good.
BTW, if you are looking for an new American large car which does well in crash testing, the new Lucerne, LaCrosse and DTS scored well. The Ford Five Hundred did well.
-Loren
problem with the numbers is they only cover what is reported, find a break down on fatality rate by type of accident and speed, look for cause and also look at injuries.
if you compare new car and old car hitting same thing like a telephone pole you will see that people in new cars have greater injuries.
I have seen someone killed in a roll over, their head was crushed by the roof , they where still belted in the seats.
I've driven a FIAT in Europe, and I was pleasantly surprised by the driving experience and balance of fuel economy and performance. They may not be up to Toyota standard, but they are far more reliable today than they once were, you just won't find them in the US.
Another thing about them, they were beautiful. Many were two tone, some even had three tone paint, with lots of chrome. Some of the best looking cars America ever made. Two of my favorites was the 1955 Ford Crown Victoria and 1957 Chevy.
A friend of mine uses a '65 289 Mustang as a daily driver and it is a deathtrap. A rebodied and overpowered '64 Falcon, weighs about 2800 lbs., and won't stop (drums) or handle - it is a wonder that we survived.
Buying a car by the pound would have us all in pickups and larger SUVS. And they would certainly be more dangerous hitting stationary objects for no other reason that impact force is equal to mass (weight) multiplied by acceleration combined with the fact that that same vehicle size impedes that vehicle's ability to avoid the accident in the first place. Do they 'win' in head-to-head collisions - certainly - and a foundation for consumer group campaigns against them.
But the contention that anything made in 1956 is in any way safer than even something as crappy as the current Malibu - is ludricrous.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
One thing that you have to remember is that when cars like that were the norm, people knew how to drive them. We have been dumbed down considerably over the decades. If you take a person who's actually USED to driving something like a '65 Mustang, he/she isn't going to be as much of a danger to himself or others than if you take someone who's been dumbed down by driving the cars of today.
Drum brakes will usually lock up more easily than disc brakes, and they're more prone to fading, although the better ones will still give you a few good, hard panic stops before the fade shows up. Oddly though, it was harder for me to lock up the drum brakes in my '68 Dart than the all-disc brakes in my 2000 Intrepid!
Tires also make a world of difference. Does your friend have bias-ply tires on his Mustang? I had radials on my Darts, fairly low-profile 70-series, and they improved handling considerably.
But the contention that anything made in 1956 is in any way safer than even something as crappy as the current Malibu - is ludricrous.
It really depends on the type of accident. For instance, a 1956 Buick might be strong enough to snap a telephone pole like a twig, whereas a 2004 Malibu might just fold around it. Or in a t-bone accident, the Malibu's passenger cabin might get compromised more than the Special's would. Now yeah, in most respects, I'd say the Malibu would be safer. But never say never.
Now one thing that can't be changed, is that a bigger vehicle does present a bigger target to be hit. If you're in the intersection and suddenly see someone running a red light and coming right at you full-tilt, even if you're in a big, fast car, you still might not be able to get your car completely out of the way quicker than someone in a small, slow car.
I wouldn't want to count on snapping the pole either. If you hit the forward brace on the frame that held the bumper and the pole was normal size, it might get a sharp enough force to snap; hit a softer area and the forces are low and the car stops-occupant doesn't until they hit the windshield header and steering wheel and by then the car has slowed down greatly compared to the speed with which the occupant continues.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My friend's 289 tested at 8 sec 0-60 and almost 16 sec quarters back in 65, you can do a lot better than that with an Accord V6 today. In a comically continuing tribute to Ford's lack of engineering abilities, the current Mustang still has many of the same problems especially as it applies to that solid rear axle and the understeer created by the front weight bias.
These days while that Accord (or TL) etc may have the power and even some of the feel of a sports sedan - they are not. Gotta have something approaching even weight distribution and RWD for that to happen.
I finished my drive others had to be towed.
Also, back then, even if you did have a big engine, usually it was positioned so that the majority of the engine's weight was behind the front axle, which helped balance things out a bit and would mean that some of that weight was spread out to the rear axle. In contrast, many FWD cars have the entire engine, it seems, mounted AHEAD of the front axle! That almost seems like it would make the car nose-heavy, and want to take weight OFF of the rear axle!
The weight distribution on many FWD cars is around 63/37, 65/35, etc. In contrast, most RWD cars were around 55/45. Now maybe something like a '68 Hemi Dart had a weight distribution on par with a modern FWD car, or maybe a Sunbeam Tiger. But even if they did, they'd definitely be an exception to the rule.
Regarding an earlier comment regard the handling of early Mustangs: true, the standard garden-variety Mustang as it rolled off the Ford lot left a lot to be desired. But these cars could EASILY be vastly improved into very good handling machines. Mustangs of the day had a very good racing history (early Shelby Mustangs in SCCA racing and later in the Trans Am series).
My cousin vintage races a '66 Shelby GT350H which has been set up by Walt Hane (who used to race for Shelby back in the mid-60's). When he open tracks his car at TWS and Motorsports Ranch, he usually has better lap times than C5 Z06 Corvettes. Granted, he has a LOT of time in the car and we are comparing a race car vs. a street car, but I think it says a lot about the POTENTIAL in even the earliest Mustangs.
Between a '69 and a '68 Dodge Dart, I racked up over 100,000 miles. And I'm not some old geezer that did it back when these cars were new! :P I bought the '69 in 1989, and the '68 in 1992 when the '69 got wrecked, and it was my main source of transportation until 1997, when I started driving a 1979 Newport that had about 100,000 less miles on it than the Dart, but proved to not be as reliable in the long run.
Both of these cars had 70-series radials, and I never felt at risk for my life when driving them. They handled and cornered well enough for most traffic situations, although I'm sure they wouldn't be so hot in the slalom test! And for just having drum brakes, they rarely got scary unless they got grossly out of adjustment. The '69, with its slant six, just had 9" brakes, but the '68 318 had 10" drums. I always thought they gave decent feedback, but that might be because they were nonpower? I also remember the '68 in particular was almost impossible to lock up, even in wet weather. I know; I tried. Now that's not to say that in a random panic situation I wouldn't be screwed, but I swear I can lock up my Intrepid's brakes before I could lock up that Dart's drums!
Rocky
This stinks, because I assumed the G35 had more than just 5% american content
Rocky
Why did you think that? The G35 is just a US-legal Skyline 350GT with different badging.
Personally, I don;t care about Domestic Content. It does count alot however that the car I'm buying is made in the US though.
(even though I value also where my car is made)
Parts plants employ thousand(s) of jobs.
Just something to also consider pal.
Rocky
Rocky