Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Also keep in mind that with some old cars, there are few people who want to work on them. Just because you have a BMW repair shop down the road, that doesn't mean they want anything to do with a 3.0 CS. And most authorized dealers won't touch old cars.
AMC Rambler American ('58-'60)
Hudson Jet ('53-'54)
Nash Rambler ('53-'55)
Studebaker Lark ('59-'61)
Also, in terms of finding people who want to work on non recent-model cars. Is it that mechanics want cars that are as similar to modern cars as possible, or that they want the simplest cars possible (hence, probably older cars)? Or some other reasoning that I'm missing?
Also, when dealing with the repair end of things, do mechanics want cars that are as similar to modern cars as possible, or that they want the simplest cars possible (hence, older cars)? Or some other reasoning that I'm missing? (Reposted from my last post.)
2002s have a great aftermarket and aren't too complicated to repair--also fun to drive, are compact in size, and can get out of their own way. Probably the best "investment", too.
As for mechanics, simple is good and you can't get much simpler than a Lark--it's pretty old tech and a good car for a DIY owner.
Also, the guys who used to work on cars like Larks are, for the most part either dead or retired by now.
Our busy Honda dealership was down to **ONE** technician who knew how to rebuild a carburator!
It's not often you see older guys working on cars. The work is hard on the body and often unrewarding. To see a mechanic over 50 is very unusual.
I know a guy who is about to retire from a busy domestic store. At age 66, he is still a heavy line mechanic. In all of my years in and around shops I think I can count the guys over 60 on one hand.
The older guys try their best to talk the young guys into finding a different profession. In addition to having to buy upwards of 40,000 in tools, it is harder and harder to make a decent living.
There are a lot of good independants out there but they face the same mechanic shortage as the dealers do. As far as saving money, that is debatable. Labor rates may be 10.00/hr. less but the independants often spend a lot of time that you pay for searching for a problem that the dealer has seen many times before.
And, the managers ARE often on commision too, not that that is a bad thing.
Try to get an independant to find an elusive rattle or water leak and see where they end up sending you.
Of course, when cars are no longer in warranty, it's funny how some people stop caring about the small pesky stuff that can be near impossible to track down.
For old normal cars,better know a good old time mechanic - the ranks of which are thinning out.
With Honda, I imagine that the carbureted models are old enough and rare enough that, when the carb needs a rebuild, it's easier to just send the carb out to a shop that specializes in rebuilding them? When was the last carbureted Honda, anyway? For some reason, I'm thinking there might have been some bargain-basement version of the Civic that still had one as recently as '89 or '90?
It really depends on the dealership to decide howe old of a car to take in for work.
Once a shop gets burned they will shy away and for good reason!
That may be a regional thing. The dealer's here gouge with hourly rates in excess of $100 and I'm routinely getting stuff done for around a third less than the dealer quotes. The dealers also try to pressure on nonsense like engine flushes and the like way beyond anything in the owners manual. I'll bet the dealers warranty work is reimbursed way below what they rip off the consumer. Personally, I don't think an oil change, air filter and tire rotation should cost what a doctor's visit costs. I appreciate mechanics skill and overhead, but look at a physicians training and ovehead - they don't come near equal.
it's not the technical end of an old car that discourages shops from working on them, it's the parts supply. Shop space is $$$, and nobody wants it loaded up with dead old cars waiting on parts.
I remember a friend and I were handed the busted up differential from a 1919 Chevrolet, and we had that figured out in a short afternoon.
A 1959 Studebaker and a 2009 Chevrolet run by the same exact principles. One's just way smarter than the other.
The old time mechanics usually learned on the job. They didn't have the Vo Tech schools that they have now.
Still, it's a tough way to make a living and the veterans are quick to tell the new people that.
My wishlist:
-A backseat big enough for a large dog or small kids
-A trunk big enough to fit 2 carry-on suitcases
-A vehicle less than 200" in length (the shorter, the better)
-Air conditioning (which I'm willing to add on)
-The best gas mileage I can get (though I know it won't be like new cars...I'd prefer 20mpg or better, but I'm learning I'll have to be flexible here)
-Needs no more than $1-2k/year in maintenance costs
-Can do 0-60 in less than 15 seconds (the faster the better)
From what I understand, domestic makes might be more reliable and economical to run. So I've thought up these models:
Corvair '60-'64
Dodge Lancer '60-'62
Ford Mustang Fastback '64-'66
Plymouth Valiant '60-'65
Plymouth Barracuda '64-65
Studebaker Lark '59-'63
Of course, I'm still partial to the imports, but acknowledge part availability and costs of maintenance may be higher. The BMW 2002 is still on the list, and other suggestions are welcomed.
I guess the most basic part of my query is, should I still consider an older car or just give up the dream?
It was tight in the back seat, but I could fit, and I'm 6'3" A dog or kids should be fine, I'd think. Trunk was something like 17.1 cubic feet, which is bigger than most cars today. However, it was a shallow trunk, so you couldn't up anything tall that had to sit upright in it.
Overall length was 196". Fuel economy was around 15-18 mpg in local driving and 22-23 on the highway. 0-60 came up in about 14 seconds, per Consumer Reports' test of a 1968 Dart with the same engine/drivetrain. They also tested a 1967 Valiant, which was about 100 pounds lighter and had a 2.94:1 axle rather than the 2.76 they started using in 1968, and got 13 seconds.
I can't recommend ANY classic car for frequent transport of small kids. Cars were MUCH less safe then.
Oops...can't believe I totally glossed over that! Also, safety issues aside, getting a child car seat in and out of a 2-door car can be a major pain. And in some of the smaller ones, like a Corvair or Mustang, would they even fit? I do know from experience that one will fit in the back of a '68 Dart hardtop, but getting it in and out is not easy.
But...if it wasn't earlier in this thread, then it was in another, where people were talking about classics and children. My impression of it was that although modern cars have added many safety features, that for decades older cars got millions of people where they needed to go without killing their kids, and they were unlikely to start doing so now. Is that impression incorrect?
And I too survived, a '65 Mustang, not much safe about it.
I think that as long as you put the kids in the back seat, and have them securely fastened, they should be fairly safe. One reason so many people died back in the day was because they didn't wear seatbelts, and they let the kids go hopping all over the car! Heck, I even remember, as a kid in the 70's, not wearing a seatbelt, playing around in the back seat, getting bored, and then climbing over to get up front between Mom and Dad. Or Grandmom and Granddad.
The important thing though, is to make sure the car seat is fastened. I don't think cars were required to even have seatbelts in the back until 1965, so if you get a 1964 or older car, there might not be anything to attach the car seat to. Seatbelts were available prior to 1965, but were an option and not ordered all that often.
One other thing to remember though, is that the disparity between small and big cars has gotten much greater in modern times. Most of the cars you listed most likely weighted less than 3,000 lb, and in some cases, much less. Even the biggest Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Imperials weren't much more than 5,000 lb. And when they'd hit, at least the bumpers would line up.
But, today there's a whole armada of big trucks and SUVs out there, that weight much more than any full-sized car of the 60's or 70's did, and when they hit, their bumpers and frames will over-ride the bumper of a car, and penetrate disturbingly deep into the passenger cabin. And I don't even want to think about getting t-boned by something like an Expedition or Suburban in ANY old car, let alone a lightweight compact!
And even cars today are bigger, heavier, and stronger than they used to be. A couple years ago, NHTSA did a crash test where they ran a 2010 or so Malibu into a 1959 Impala. Both cars were totaled, but the crash test dummy in the Malibu suffered very little damage. What happened to the dummy in the Impala was downright disturbing. And, a 1959 Impala isn't a particularly small car...
Of course, the less you drive, the less chance you'll have to worry about that. If you were out there driving 15-20,000 miles per year or more, and regularly carting kids around, I'd think twice. And, if you drive an old car regularly, just be extra attentive of what's going on around you. Old cars don't react as quickly as newer ones, and often lose control more easily. So you have to make sure you leave a little more distance between you and the car in front of you, realize that people are going to dive and swoop in front of you, etc.
Even the fuzzy dice in the Bel Air went through the windshield. :sick:
I'm kinda curious as to how a '59 Plymouth or Ford would have held up compared to a similar car. I'm convinced that among standard-sized cars, the Chevy was probably the worst of the worst, thanks to its relatively light curb weight and the wasp-waisted X-frame. That severe dog-leg of the A-pillar probably contributed a bit as well, as it's essentially "pre-bent". I'd think more conventional A-pillar that slopes back as it goes upward would provide a bit more resistance.
I'd imagine a '59 Ford would do a little better, thanks to its ladder frame, although it still has the severe A-pillar bend. A '59 Plymouth would have a ladder frame and a more modern A-pillar, so it might do a bit better still.
But, all that aside, I wouldn't want to be in a crash in any of those cars!
Oh, another problem with the Chevy is that GM tended to mount the steering box really far forward, so that even a mild impact would send the column back into the passenger cabin, like a spear. Mopar tended to mount it further back, not sure how far back it was on the Fords.
Is there any research or indication as to what point between 1959 and 2009 that cars became significantly safer?
I would say one of the bigger leaps would've been in the late 1960's. In 1967, collapsible steering columns became standard equipment. In 1968, most dashboards got a lot more crash padding, and starting on 1/1/68, all non-convertible cars were required to have shoulder belts up front. On 1/1/69, all cars were required to have headrests up front. Also, I think it was 1969 that GM started putting in side door guard beams, which improved protection if you got t-boned. Everyone else added them soon thereafter.
Seatbelts with shoulder restraints were probably one of the biggest safety leaps, but unfortunately, seatbelts only work if you use them. And, for the most part, I don't think seatbelt use became really widespread until the 1980's, when they started passing seatbelt laws. And, those early shoulder restraints were very awkward. The shoulder strap was a separate piece, and required an extra buckle. You could fasten it away in the ceiling if you didn't want to use it. It also didn't retract, so you had to adjust it to fit, and once you were strapped in, you didn't have much range of motion. I think it was 1973 that they started using the one-piece retractable shoulder belts that are still in use today, where part of it is anchored at the floor, and the upper part, either in the ceiling, B-pillar, or built into the seat.
As for crashes, I think the most common type of crash is a single-vehicle crash, where you leave the road and hit something like a tree, telephone pole, etc, or simply run into a ditch.
In contrast, it looks like things like increased seatbelt use, and more widespread use of airbags have had a relatively negligible effect on death rates.
?? I'd come to the exact opposite conclusion. There is overall a constant drop in fatality rate, with small jumps at times. Remember, this is the overall death rate, with newer cars coming in gradually over time. So as modern safety equipment has gotten into the fleet the rate drops, to 1/5 of what it was initially.
However, in recession years, perhaps people drive more gently? Or they cut out pleasure driving? Although, I dunno if "pleasure" driving is more dangerous than the driving you have to do, such as going to work, running errands, etc.
Or, maybe they're less likely to go out to a party or bar, get sloshed, and end up crashing on the way home?
I've also heard that red dust comes out of the '59 upon impact, implying some structural rust.
Still, my friend opines (and I agree), what was the purpose, other than grandstanding? A nice, affordable collector car for someone was ruined, and for what? I think most people know an '09 car is safer than a '59.
My friend looked at the car when it was for sale, before it was bought to crash. He said it looked pretty nice, all things considered.
It was a dumb stunt, I think.
You might, but I get a lot of 'they don't build them like they used to' comments in other forums, often from folks wanting to buy a '60s car for their teen son/daughter. If that video convinced one of them not to do it, it was well worth the 'loss'.
I used to be under the impression that, to some degree, when an old car and a new car collide, the new car becomes the crumple zone for the old car. But, looking at the '59 versus '09 crash, definitely not the case.
As for unit body versus body on frame, a few years back I remember seeing the results of a head-on collision between a 1964 or so T-bird and a fairly new Crown Vic police car. The Crown Vic definitely took on a lot more damage than the T-bird, and the policeman was hospitalized for some pretty serious injuries.
The driver of the T-bird died, but she was a 90 year old woman. At that age, it doesn't take much of an impact to hurt or even kill someone. A younger, healthier person probably would have survived the impact, although there's a chance they still might have hit their head on the steering wheel or dash. But, all you'd really need to do with the B-bird is put in shoulder belts, and it would have probably done pretty well in that particular crash, for most drivers.
I also think this is the kind of thing that makes non-car people start thinking "We ought to outlaw those damn old cars and the nuts that drive them!".