Modern Cars vs. Classic Cars: A Pointless Argument

"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg) 06/08/2014 at 15:30 • Filed to: None

74

100

As a car lover, and a youth, I'm finding that there seems to be a sort of divide amongst some car enthusiasts. It's obviously there, because even non-enthusiasts can see it. When people find out I'm a gearhead, the most common question isn't "Do you like American cars or imports?" It isn't, "Do you like sports cars or pickup trucks?" It isn't even, "What is your favorite car?" No, the first question I get asked most often, by gearheads and non-gearheads alike is, "Do you like new cars or old cars?"

New or old? Classic or Contemporary? High-tech or high-style? It surprises me that, even amongst gearheads, hell, even amongst Jalops, there is so much discourse regarding which is better. As though one must definitely be superior and one must be declared the loser. On one side, you have people like me, who argue that old cars embody the soul and the passion of the automobile as an entity. The raw, unadulterated experience of driving an old car is what creates an emotional bond between man and machine, and according to some, that bond can't be created when there are so many computers helping you guide the car down the road. You have people like me, who aren't impressed by the Nissan GT-R and vomited into their own mouth when the heard about BMW's new "exhaust sound".

On the other side, you have mostly younger people. People like me, who have limited experience driving older cars. People like me who love the fact that modern technology is constantly pushing the limits of what's possible, and who can't understand why you would want to commute in a manual. People like me who want their car to start up every morning and get them where they're going quickly, comfortably, and safely. The past is the past, and while it's nice to remember and reminisce, I wasn't there, and I am perfectly happy to plow on towards the future.

I damn near bought an old car for my first daily driver. I spent the longest time lusting over the late Jeep Grand Wagoneer. This was a car built in 1965 in 1990, so old-fashioned that even just after it ended production, it seemed like a relic. Keep in mind some of the other stuff being made in 1990. Yet I was so smitten by the style of the thing, and the chunky, trail-truck way it drove that I wasn't prepared to be happy with anything else. My dad and I looked at three of them around town, but alas, they were just too pricey. I was sad to cross that car off my list, but I have promised myself that I will someday own one.

Then, up until a few days before I actually ended up buying what I ended up buying, I thought I was getting a 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. It was twenty feet long, had an eight point two liter V8 and got eight miles to the gallon, downhill, with a tailwind. But it was triple red, had seventy thousand miles on the clock, and nothing could convince me that it wasn't the coolest car in the world. We drove an hour out of town to go see it, and I fell even further in love when I saw it in person than I did when I saw it on line. It was spotless, it was brash, and it was big. I don't care how big you are thinking "big" is, it's bigger than that. The hood felt like it was eight miles long, it had a bellowing foghorn to warn mortals in small modern economy cars to get out of the way, and a large hood ornament for aiming if they didn't. It was perfect. And then I drove it.

Even with the size, and the weight, and the technology, and the catalytic converters, I cannot believe that the car with the largest mass production V8 in history could be so slow. It was like waiting for Christmas in January. That's probably a good thing, though, because when I stepped on the brake pedal hard at just thirty miles an hour, all four tires locked up, and the car slid off the side of the road, a considerable distance from where I had first decided I wanted to stop. Even going down the two lane country road normally at 40 miles an hour, with traffic piling up behind me, I was amazed how little I had to do with where the car went. "How is it possible," I asked myself, "that this car is drifting over the center line and drifting off the side of the road at the same time?" Don't get me wrong, I loved how it floated along and commanded other road users to get out of its way, but that being said, it was horrible.

And so I ended up with a much newer land barge. This land barge is German and has all wheel drive, a shiftable automatic (which for some people appears to be the work of Satan), many air bags, traction control, antilock brakes, stability control, and power steering. It is also beige, and should therefor provide the same soulful driving and ownership experience as a riding mower. But I don't mind that. I'm okay with giving up the spirit and the sensation of driving the Caddy for the much newer, safer, and better equipped A8L.

Now I realize that the two cars I picked aren't what all the fuss is about. The Cadillac has some of the worst driving dynamics of any car for the last 60 years, old or new. And the Audi was in no way ever intended to send a chill down your spine, warm the cockles of your heart, or make your pants feel funny. It was meant to get you from point A to point B as quickly, safely, and comfortably as possible. Neither of these cars are where the real battle rages. Oh no. The real battle rages in a category which itself has been the topic of much debate, down to its very definition: sports cars.

The Jaguar E-Type, which nobody appears to remember was also called the XK-E here in the states, is a prime example. Hand-built in England before any modern safety features existed, it is a jaw-droppingly beautiful work of art. At the time, automakers weren't concerned with making cars look angry or aggressive. Safety standards didn't make the car bulky looking, or heavy. And because it was prior to the advent of driving aids, the big straight six engine and four-speed manual were your responsibility to keep in check. And the noise they produced was pure mechanical music, a direct result of a fantastic engine being routed to a simple, functional exhaust. There are downsides to an E-Type, though. It is famously unreliable, not particularly safe, especially in wet conditions, and not nearly as fast as a modern car.

A modern car, such as its own grandchild. One of the most critically acclaimed (and I do hate that term) cars of the last few years, the Jaguar F-Type is a thoroughly modern interpretation of the E-Type, down to its name. It is built in 2014, by machines, using computer-designed blueprints. The designers deliberately tried to make it look aggressive and angry, as the times call for. It has a hood height dictated by pedestrian safety standards and mandatory crumple zones on all sides. Yet despite this, it too, is an astonishingly beautiful car, as was the XK before it. It also has ABS, traction control, air bags, a supercharger, an aluminum body, an electronic limited slip differential (on the V8), and a transmission which is sacrilegious to any purist. It's an eight-speed (that's way too many) automatic (no driver's car can be automatic) with paddle shifters (the work of Satan, as I said). The only way this car could be less like the E-Type is if it were front wheel drive. I imagine that if it were, every classic sports car aficionado would simply melt into a shrieking, angry puddle, like the Wicked Witch of the West. But still, the F-Type has car enthusiasts and the media alike tugging at their leashes. It is, as I said, one of the prettiest cars of the 21st century, along with the Aston Martin V8 Vantage, the Rolls-Royce Wraith, the Audi A7, the original Mercedes CLS, and others. And as anyone who has driven one can tell you, it is a proper driver's car.

It's the same story with the new 911, the new Corvette Stringray, the Lamborghini Aventador, the Ferrari 458, the Dodge Viper, the Audi R8 and the Mercedes SLS. All of them are full of computers, automatic transmissions, safety systems and tuned exhaust valves that should make them ugly, soulless appliances which evoke no passion, no desire, no emotion from their owners or from passersby. They can be bought by anyone with money, regardless of taste, driving skill, mechanical inclination, or interest in cars. And yet, they are more than that. They are all very, very good looking cars. Some beautiful, some just striking and exciting. They all sound good, great in fact. They sound mechanical, and the fact that they were designed to sound that way doesn't matter, once you hear them. And, if you ask anyone who has driven one, they will tell you that it puts a huge smile on your face, and makes every car-loving fiber of your being feel all warm and fuzzy.

What I'm trying to say is this. Old cars are great. I adore them, I respect them, I appreciate them, and I want one in the worst kind of way. But to those who say that new cars don't have any soul, don't evoke any emotion, don't create a sense of passion, and don't make for an entertaining, enjoyable, and most of all, engaging driving experience, I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. It's not true that a car must have a manual transmission and no driver's aids to be considered a driver's car. It's not true that a true car enthusiast must turn their nose up at any modern car that is too computerized, too safe, too helpful to those who don't know what they're doing. And it's simply not true that you can't love a modern car. Modern cars may be growing, and changing, but don't fear the change. Because as long as there's people like us, who love automobiles and want them to love us back, the driver's car won't die. It will simply evolve. So please, stop comparing old cars to new ones, and trying to convince people which is better, because both can be completely awesome.

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:39

3

the Dodge Viper , the Audi R8 and the Mercedes SLS. All of them are full of computers , automatic transmissions , safety systems and tuned exhaust valves that should make them ugly, soulless appliances which evoke no passion, no desire, no emotion from their owners or from passersby. They can be bought by anyone with money, regardless of taste, driving skill

Your boy, BJR > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:40

3

I'll finish reading when I get home but first- hurngurngurngungBROWN. CADILLAC.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Goshen, formerly Darkcode 06/08/2014 at 15:41

5

Okay, so the Dodge is manual-only. Not my point.

dogisbadob > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:42

2

nice first-gen TL

dogisbadob > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:43

4

hood ornament makes up for it. Too bad nobody uses them anymore, except Mercedes and Jaguar :(

dogisbadob > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:46

7

The 78 Challenger beats them both :)

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:51

0

But a mermamer has more soul then a meramer gen 6.

djmt1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:51

0

Hear hear, that was a good read and while I agree arguing is pointless, I enjoy it and don't believe it should go away, however it shouldn't get hostile like in the earlier discussion, people have different opinions, it's a thing and people need to deal with it better.

Also in a case anyone care (probably not) I loathe old cars, things are better now and as far as I'm concerned soul and emotion are just cop outs for not very good.

dogisbadob > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:52

0

Personally, I like 90s cars the best. A good compromise between old and new, and the last cars made before major safety standards started fucking shit up in the design department. The 90s brought cool features like new cars, yet they still have a reasonable amount of simplicity and fun/soul/etc, and the best time period for having a nice blend of active and passive safety. Newer regulations have become counterproductive, especially in regards to visibility, causing accidents that wouldn't have happened before. Instead of requiring cameras, why not require windows instead?

All cars since the mid-90s are practically zero-emitting. If we rolled back safety standards to 1997 (when dual airbags were first required and some side protection, I think) we will still have safe cars without the drawbacks of the new stuff (overly heavy, complex, and counterproductive)

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:53

2

This. A million times this.

You just managed to put into words what I've been thinking for years.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 15:55

9

I'm...I just...but it...how can...okay.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles 06/08/2014 at 15:56

0

Say what now?

Jayhawk Jake > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 15:56

8

I'm curious, did anyone who grew up/was alive in the 70s lust after cars from the 30s?

Another think I wonder about is the average age of classic car lovers. I wonder how many people that prefer older cars or own older cars lived when they were new. To them, while classic by today's standards those cars were at one time the pinnacle. Maybe now the people who own them wanted to own them when they were new but only recently were able to.

For example, I hope to own an R8 someday, but by the time I could afford one it'll probably be 20-30 years old. By then itll be an outdated classic, but in my mind it'll be the car I know today.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Jayhawk Jake 06/08/2014 at 16:01

0

Let me put it this way. The oldest car I can remember seeing when it first came out was the Chevy SSR. Kind of a hard car to forget. But I still love cars from every decade. I just think that old car lovers, whether old themselves or not, complain about modern cars too much.

M-Powwerr Drives a Ford > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 16:17

2

I would have to say though I love old cars and there are many I want to have in my collection someday, when I buy my first car (I turn 16 in February, and will hopefully have the required funds by next summer) I have the requirements of fuel injection, airbags, A/C and a manual. Unless I can find the funds for a winter beater, I need something that has a chance of starting out in the cold Wisconsin winter and in the summer keeping comfortable while driving. At some point I want cars without a/c airbags and EFI, but until I can afford multiple cars I need a semi modern jack of all trades

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 16:22

6

Guy from 1900's says about cars of the 1930's , "When I was a youngster a true enthusiast's auto had to be cranked over by hand and didn't pamper the driver with a roof and windshield. These new-fangled autos with their fancy, namby-pamby electric starters and other such nonsense are going to ruin auto-sport. It's as if, God forbid, they're building new automobiles for women, sissies, and cripples".

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 06/08/2014 at 16:24

1

Exactly

Mosqvich > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 16:27

1

Fantastic piece. I'm tweeting this for the FP guys!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 16:32

1

Thanks! The front-page commenters will also be helpful with spell-checking, Im sure ;)

TheVancen- In Pursuit of a Greater Payday and Car Parts > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 16:33

3

How about a fusion of the old and the new? I'll use my car as an example. 1977 Ford Capri Mk II. Originally equipped with the Pinto 2.0L inline-four, that engine found a home in the previous owners autocross car, a TVR clone/tribute. So I have the (slightly rusty) beautiful body of the classic Capri, but missing its classic heart. So i think, "what would be a suitable replacement for the 2 liter?"

A late model V8? My father's 1979 Mk III has a fuel injected 5.0L from a 1988 Mustang wedged between the fenders. A modified version of a different factory engine? His 1975 Mk II John Player Special has that covered with a turbo charged 2.8L V6.

So i thought about unique cars that Ford had built in the last 25 years, (I refuse to sully the engine bay of this car with anything but a mill from a Ford), and I found an old article about the AIV Mercury Sable. http://jalopnik.com/5524152/mercur…

This car was powered by the same Yamaha developed 3.0L V6 as the SHO Taurus, the Sable just comes to mind more easily because I DD a 1992 Sable in Cranberry Metallic.

But obviously any Taurus out there would be front wheel drive, the Capri being rear wheel drive. As it turns out, the bolt pattern matches that of the V6 Ford Ranger, Aerostar and Bronco II, as well as the Mazda B-2000. And its even a 5-speed manual. My left foot get bored without a third pedal to keep it busy.

So not a bad idea? The wonderful looking body of the Ford Capri, stuffed with a beating heart in the form of a (relatively) new 3.0L SHO V6?

By the way, anyone know where to find a Rusty and or wrecked SHO Taurus? They're too cool to cut up a good one. Sorry I was so long winded.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > TheVancen- In Pursuit of a Greater Payday and Car Parts 06/08/2014 at 16:46

0

The sounds like a great idea! You might try a SHO like this, with a rough body but in good mechanical shape (hopefully!). Other than that, Google can be an amazing thing.

TheVancen- In Pursuit of a Greater Payday and Car Parts > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 16:49

2

Holy shit. That is exactly what im looking for O_o Wheres my credit card!?

Have a video of my rather rusty crap can of a Capri

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > TheVancen- In Pursuit of a Greater Payday and Car Parts 06/08/2014 at 16:51

0

Can't wait to see it when you finish!

Mosqvich > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 16:58

1

You really only had a few mistakes, but I think your writing is very good. I mean very good. Plus, the content was super interesting and thought provoking.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 17:06

1

I am flattered. Thanks very much!

TheVancen- In Pursuit of a Greater Payday and Car Parts > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 17:07

2

My goal is to have it mobile and road worthy for Ford Expo on Labor day weekend. Should tell the Roadkill guys to come join me, its right up their alley

Mosqvich > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 18:51

1

Bam! You're FP. Get ready for the comments. :-)

tobythesandwich > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 18:59

3

"we will still have safe cars without the drawbacks of the new stuff (overly heavy, complex, and counterproductive)"

Yeah, but they aren't. There are very few cars from the 90's that could hold up to anywhere near today's safety standards. They aren't that safe. For example, yesterday I saw a mid to late 90's Buick that got rear ended by an early Volvo 850... The Volvo driver was hurt (loaded into an ambulance), and the Buick driver was bleeding and looked pretty hurt. Not to mention the entire trunk of the Buick was smashed in.

There's no drawbwacks to the new stuff. It's all absurdly safe now. And that's the point. 90's cars seem safe enough. But that's only because we spent decades as a country not giving a damn about safety.

stillthrottledown > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 18:59

3

The R8 and 911 are both offered in manual.

Goofnik > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:02

3

I have this showing up in September. I currently drive a NC (Rev. 1) MX-5 with a 6-speed, LSD and the uprated Bilsteins. Previously I drove a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR for the few months before it was hit by a Ford Expedition.

Do I like the MX-5? Apparently. Had it for 8 years. I can drive the balls off of it all the time. The clutch engagement point is vague, but the pedal is linear and it engages exactly where I would expect it and the shifter is one of the best I've ever used (best manual I've used is probably S2000/NSX). I drive it top-down over 95% of the time. It's seen many track days.

Did I love the Evo? Very much. The clutch was brutal (and the ring-puller for reverse was a great throwback), as was the power delivery, but damned if the car wasn't a hoot. It wasn't smooth. It was a bit goofy. It looked goofy. It felt angry. It got warm in the cabin when you drove it. Yet I could place it within an inch or two of where I wanted. I'd still be driving it probably if it never got hit. It had a personality like nothing I've driven before or since.

The Cayman GTS will have an LSD with torque vectoring, the hardcore passively sprung X73 Sports Suspension and — wait for it — PDK. It took four test drives (of S models) for me to decide PDK. It is different than using a manual. There are things I miss about driving a manual, but there are different things I get with PDK that I enjoy that I can't get with a manual (in which the Porsche 6MT has an early bite point, and a bit of a rubbery shifter), mostly those crazy fast, crazy firm upshifts. It's different. Yet I still like it. I like it so much I opted to pay quite a bit extra to have it.

PardonMyFlemish16 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:04

2

Great piece. I think the "side picking" just comes down to people looking for an angle to assert themselves over others. If everyone is agreeable and friendly how can anyone be superior?

Main thing for me is choice. I have my preferences, but I think everyone should be able to choose what they want. And we have never had more choice than now.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > stillthrottledown 06/08/2014 at 19:04

1

Indeed they are. And the Viper is offered only with a manual. But most of the R8s and 911s sold are automatics. And regardless of transmission, all three cars are fairly high-tech.

jalop1991 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:05

2

And just wait until you all discover women. You'll understand this entire concept with a suddenness and finality that will make your head spin.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > PardonMyFlemish16 06/08/2014 at 19:07

2

100% agree with you. Some people say gear heads are a dying breed. I say there's never been a better time to love cars.

stillthrottledown > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:08

1

I am aware of the viper, but I didn't feel I needed to say it again since someone already pointed it out. Yes both of your last two statements are true.

Michael J Posner > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:13

3

Great article and I agree, modern cars can easily have soul. My two cars are night and day and I enjoy them both (1965 Chevrolet Corvair Corsa 4 speed/140 and my 2014 BMW 235i 6 speed/320)

Qfwfq > Goofnik 06/08/2014 at 19:15

0

When you grow tired of it, I'd be happy to take that off your hands.

I might even give you money for it.

Qfwfq > jalop1991 06/08/2014 at 19:16

2

It's not a real woman unless it's at least 60 years old, with a stick between the

wait what

Seatballs > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:17

1

Buy an old Alfa and keep it running for a year. If you still like old cars after that experience, then you get your 'Gearhead' badge.

DOROKIN240 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:17

1

you basically summed up the feelings both sides have in a perfect manner. Very well written!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Michael J Posner 06/08/2014 at 19:17

0

Great cars, both of them! One for cruising and one for weekend blasts on the twisty roads! I'll bet that BMW is a hoot.

BrtStlnd > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:18

3

I really appreciate the sentiment of your piece and I agree that there doesn't need to be a winner decided in this battle. Both sets of vehicle classes/eras have distinct advantages that can't be ignored. Old cars can have that nostalgic feeling that is tough for modern counterparts to replicate. The minimalist era of sports cars was a great one that will never return. Newer cars are MUCH better at actually being cars to be driven on a regular basis. Safety, reliability, features, etc, are all check marks for modern cars that old cars can't compete with in any capacity.

I did notice that you said automatic transmissions can't be in drivers cars only to say the opposite later...so... Maybe you're a bit conflicted.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Seatballs 06/08/2014 at 19:19

0

I have an old (1991) Alfa. And it hasn't been running in 3 years.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > DOROKIN240 06/08/2014 at 19:20

0

Thanks! The easy part was figuring out how both sides felt, since I feel for both sides!

JulianB > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:21

2

I think when people ask that question they are probably more asking whether you're the sort of person who just likes driving cars, or are the sort of person who likes working on cars. Those of us who like older cars typically enjoy the process of working on them etc. On the other hand, I know many people who say they are into cars but prefer modern models, which rarely require maintenance, thus they probably wouldn't know the first thing about their workings.

Nothing wrong with either of those types of car fans, but I think being into older cars goes hand in hand with working on them, whereas being into newer cars means in many cases that you are predominantly/exclusively into the driving part of cars.

bbutle01 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:22

1

Grammar check please. Some sentences don't compute!

MTY85 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:22

2

"Old car?" HOW old should be the question. To some, a ten year old car is "old." To others, the 1980s are impossibly old cars. Some people herald back to the 1960s. Hell, some people would think of a Model T or older when they hear that term. The car has been with us for quite some time, and the vast majority of them are "old" at this point. It's quite an expansive question.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > BrtStlnd 06/08/2014 at 19:23

2

During the bit where I was "complaining" about the E-Type's transmission, I was doing it from the perspective of an old-car diehard. I love manuals, and just learned how to drive one myself, but I think automatics can be fun too.

Stradale > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:23

1

100% agree with article. I grew up loving cars from about 1989-present, but that doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate cars from the past as well.

BrtStlnd > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 19:24

9

Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > JulianB 06/08/2014 at 19:26

0

I agree with that. One of the reasons I didn't end up with an old car is I don't know much about working on them. A new car doesn't need as much work, and when it does, it is usually expensive and complicated enough to justify sending it to the dealer.

I never thought about that being the main reason people asked, but you could very well be right!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > bbutle01 06/08/2014 at 19:27

0

I am notorious for run-ons, if that's what you mean. I won't be offended if you throw some examples out there for me to fix, in fact, it would be appreciated!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > MTY85 06/08/2014 at 19:29

1

In this case, I think of old as being pre-1989, the legal definition of a "classic" in the united states. Pre ABS, traction control, etc. Although you're right, it isn't set in stone.

stigshift > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:29

3

Brilliant article! I don't know where I fit in the car hobby either. I can find something to like about almost any car. My DD is an '06 Chrysler T&C (I drive a cab) but I own a '90 Miata and a 2000 Crown Vic Interceptor as well. I loved my '76 Fleetwood and my '77 Fiat X1/9 equally. I hope to acquire another Lincoln MK V and a gen 1 Honda Civic 5-speed. And a Citroen 2CV, a manual CTS-V wagon, a '73 Chevy Chevelle SS wagon, a Mercedes 450 SEL 6.9, an Amphicar, a Unimog, a GMC motorhome, and maybe a Chevette Deisel....

Goofnik > Qfwfq 06/08/2014 at 19:31

0

I plan to drive it until I'm dead, unless it suffers the same fate the Evo did. The only thing I wish it had was the carbon fiber sports buckets, but they're not offered in the US market.

All I see is getting a 2nd car for a DD in the future. Like a used Mk7 GTI PP with a 6MT.

RaggedMile > Jayhawk Jake 06/08/2014 at 19:32

3

Me. Old Cords, Packards, Duesseys, etc. The Bertone Cadillac is a particular favorite.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 19:32

0

Gracias!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > stigshift 06/08/2014 at 19:33

3

Thanks!

Automotive diversity! It's the new cultural diversity!

webmonkees > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:36

1

I have no problem with either spectrum except for the price tag. When I resolve the issue properly, I may yet get something that doesn't start with 19 for the model year. No promises.

emjayay > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 19:42

3

Ha-ha. Forgot about those. But meanwhile, although the Challenger is my fave of the new retro-ponies, the original is better. Looking anyway.

stigshift > M-Powwerr Drives a Ford 06/08/2014 at 19:46

2

This should be your first car. The hardtop will make winter tolerable. Miata is always the answer! Seriously, good luck and happy driving with whatever you get! And be safe. ?zz=1

emjayay > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 19:49

1

I did enjoy the aiming quality of the hood ornament and also chrome topped fender blades on my '62 Lincoln.

emjayay > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:50

2

My friend used to call his the Alfalfa Romeo.

M-Powwerr Drives a Ford > stigshift 06/08/2014 at 19:52

1

my mom already has that exact car without a hard top, all the ones around are either garage queens or beat to shit, I would hate to ruin one with the winter salt and my mom already said no convertibles.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > RaggedMile 06/08/2014 at 19:52

1

I loves me some Duesenberg, You probably guessed that, though.

emjayay > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:54

1

While far from modern standards, the Cadillac shouldn't have braked and steered like that. It would have had discs on the front. It sounds like lunched tie rods and defective brake balancing valve or something like that.

emjayay > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:55

1

Since you or someone brought it up, aides are assistants. Humans not mechanical bits. You meant aids.

Fauxe > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:55

1

Funny thing is I was born in the late 80's and I adore the RX7's, R33's, Supra's, etc. And for the past 10 years I have been trying to find a modern car that I will love. So far it's only the Toyobaru twins and that monstrous 2015 SRT Challenger that have gained my interest. Top of my head, not a single BMW, Audi, Merc, or even Nissan's GTR that has made me go "I must own one in the near future".

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > emjayay 06/08/2014 at 19:58

0

I'll fix that. Thanks!

Hifrequency > emjayay 06/08/2014 at 19:58

4

The same can't be said of the old sexy sleek Chargers VS new fat 4 door bloated walruses.

syaieya > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:59

3

The thing I always find funny about the argument of old cars VS new is that people tend to forget that every era of cars has their own dull, lifeless, uninspired, and great in concept kind of cars.

But these, tend to get forgotten as time goes on.

So yes, the E type is a beautiful car, i got my first experience in one this weekend. And it was a great one despite feeling sick as a dog later in the day.

But you know what else that same time period produced?

The corvair, the Dodge Dart. all of british leyland, and on and on.

Howie > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 19:59

3

I liked old cars right up until a bunch of fat old drunks with deep pockets started throwing money at them as an "investment".

V8soundRIOT- Now Has a V8 > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 20:00

1

What about RR and Bentley?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > syaieya 06/08/2014 at 20:02

1

Careful. There's some folks on here who quite like the Corvair. I'm not a huge fan, and I think the early ones weren't great at the time, but they're classics now ;)

stigshift > M-Powwerr Drives a Ford 06/08/2014 at 20:02

0

Hopefully your mom will let you drive hers occasionally. Apparently you have a really cool mom! Look into a good used Honda. With a sunroof...

LucasWarmWater > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:09

1

That's probably a good thing, though, because when I stepped on the brake pedal hard at just thirty miles an hour, all four tires locked up, and the car slid off the side of the road, a considerable distance from where I had first decided I wanted to stop.

Its one thing to "embellish" a story...

M-Powwerr Drives a Ford > stigshift 06/08/2014 at 20:10

0

My uncle might be getting rid of his 06 Accord EX-L V6 6MT sedan, which was used for commuting and thus has 200k miles making it worthless. It being a Honda means it will run until it rots apart. My mom said she would teach me stick on the Miata and let me drive it on occasion. I'll probably volunteer do drive it in the dead heat of summer when it's "too hot" for a convertible. Also, and I don't know if this is BS or not, my grandpa is talking about buying me a BMW, now I am not some snobby spoiled rich kid, but he and I both like them, the only difference being he can afford it and I can't (yet). He has two, a 535i and a X3 35i. According to him the X3 is faster.

dogisbadob > V8soundRIOT- Now Has a V8 06/08/2014 at 20:11

0

Oh yeah, I did forget about RR, but they are hideously expensive and relatively low production. The two I did remember are more attainable. Does Bentley still use the hood ornament?

dogisbadob > BrtStlnd 06/08/2014 at 20:11

0

No, but maybe nibbles did. It says 1 response, but at least two people have replied to me.

emjayay > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:12

2

Nice post. Your mention of cars today having to look angry or aggressive or something is so true. Unless they are pickup trucks, and then they have to look like Mack trucks. Dodge started that. Now they all have huge chrome walls on the front.

It's something I really dislike about most modern cars. Look at the Mercedes pictured. The rear of the new one is very nice. The front is overstyled to look like it's lunging ahead and attacking the cars ahead, and it's not the worst even Mercedes. The overall shape of the current Corvette is amazing, and then it's carved all over the place with all kinds of edgy aggressive crap. Its original namesake is just beautiful with none of that.

Same thing with huge wheels and chopped pillbox windowed tops. Most designer sketches are even more so, so they think that's the coolest look ever and just compromise a bit so people can get in and out and see out a little.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > LucasWarmWater 06/08/2014 at 20:12

0

I'm dead serious. The speedo was pegged at thirty, I did slam on the brakes, all four tires did lock up in a cloud of smoke, and the car skidded to the right side onto the shoulder.

shop-teacher > Jayhawk Jake 06/08/2014 at 20:17

1

I think a lot of people lust after cars that are before their time. A good friend of mine graduated high school in '81, and he loves post war cars that were new when his dad was in school. He owns a '48 Packard, a '48 Cadillac, and a '56 Cadillac.

I graduated in '99, and am most definitely infatuated with cars of the 60's/70's, which were new when my dad was young.

Interestingly, both of our dads think we're nuts for liking, "crappy old cars." And they have a point. I love my '74 Buick Apollo, but it rides like shit, handles like a bag of ball bearings, and in a drag race it would get its ass handed to it by my '11 Malibu.

dogisbadob > Hifrequency 06/08/2014 at 20:21

0

Yeah, the new Charger isn't the greatest, but it redeems itself by being the winner by default since it's the only middle class RWD V8 sedan available in the US (Chevy is too childish to sell the Caprice to retail customers, and the SS is too expensive. Ford didn't even bother to give us the Falcon. And of course there are numerous expensive European sedans with V8's, but they're too expensive). And of course, they did make a Magnum wagon for a few years. Magnum SRT8 yo!! (Early SRT8's even had rear ends from the W210 E55 made in Germany)

Both it, and the original, are better than the 80s Charger, even if some of them go like Hell

shop-teacher > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:21

2

Nice write-up young man. Very well said.

I really love both the old and the new. I have a mild obsession with all things Corvair. I've been dreaming of building a WWII era Jeep into a road racer for about half my life (insane, I know). I'd also love to have a new Camaro, or Mustang, or Challenger, or BRZ, or Caymen in my garage.

New cars are fantastic. Old cars are too, just for different reasons. Anybody who only experiences one, is really short changing their self.

Duke Togo > Jayhawk Jake 06/08/2014 at 20:24

2

Yes, I was born in the early 70s, and I count many 30s classics among the most beautiful cars ever created. My personal obsession was/is the '35-'36 Auburn Boattail Speedster.

yitznewton > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:27

1

This was a car built in 1965 in 1990, so old-fashioned even just it after it ended production, it seemed like a relic.

Edit me please :}

gmctavish needs more space > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:28

2

Every section of that made me smile, well done man, hope to see more from you

syaieya > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:35

1

You know, I debated throwing in the original 911 for my candidate of ditch loving vehicles of the 1960s. But the corvair is so much more of a polarizing vehicle and to my knowledge didn't have a great racing history like the german RR. You can't deny that dynamically they were pretty awful. And that's kind of key when making a car. I'm sure there are plenty more obscure vehicles from the 1960's that were even worse than the corvair, some of them actually ended up being rather nice visually. It was kind of my great in concept example.

The point Im getting at still stands that while people are complaining about all these little things in today's cars, there are plenty of vehicles from every era that fit the same bill.

Color-Commentary > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:36

1

So say we all!

Darigaaz > dogisbadob 06/08/2014 at 20:36

1

Hifrequency > RaggedMile 06/08/2014 at 20:37

1

I'm not old, I like old muscle & new, but there is one crazy old car that is so weird & awesome I dig it. 66' Chrysler Imperial, don't get me wrong a 57' Chevy is cool & almost every Vette, but holy crap.

tapzz > Jayhawk Jake 06/08/2014 at 20:38

3

There's always been two kinds of classic fan: the nostalgics and the anoraks.

The nostalgics is where the big money is; these are people who finally have the money to buy what they liked in high school. It's why Model As were big once, and then Oldsmobile Rocket 88s, Ford shoeboxes and old skool hot rods. Then it was tri-five chevys, followed by pony cars and muscle cars. We're now at the dawn of the air-cooled Porsche and BMW 02 era. We'll see the big money Honda Civic CRX etc. after that, I'm sure.

Anoraks like me go for anything weird and wonderful; from a 1926 Tatra T12 to a 2000 Honda Insight Mk. 1

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > shop-teacher 06/08/2014 at 20:39

1

Thanks! & A road-racing willys jeep would be very cool if done right!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > yitznewton 06/08/2014 at 20:42

1

I meant to say that. "Built in 1965 in 1990" is my way of saying that it is a 1960's design built virtually unchanged until the early 90's. The other half could use a "that" in there though.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > gmctavish needs more space 06/08/2014 at 20:43

2

Thanks very much! I hope to do more when I get free time.

stigshift > M-Powwerr Drives a Ford 06/08/2014 at 20:43

0

It sounds like the family has got you covered. My dad, who's 76, just turned 300k miles on his '98 V6 Accord. Hope you enjoy whatever you end up with as much as I have enjoyed all of the cars I've had over the years (90+). By the way, you write extremely well for such a young man. You are to be congratulated for that. That is a skill that fewer and fewer people possess as the digital age takes over.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > syaieya 06/08/2014 at 20:44

0

I totally get what you were saying. In terms of driving dynamics especially, it wasn't vey good.

Maxxuman > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:49

2

You seem a bit like this guy - without the crazy part.

My dreams are more rooted in the older stuff but for a daily driver they don't tend to be a practical option.

mdensch > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:51

2

I was expecting this to turn into a discussion of some imagined generational divide. Thank you for not going there.

In fact, I'm an enthusiast of a certain age and I agree that today's cars are about as good as cars have ever been. I cringe when I'm at a car show and hear some guy standing next to a '57 Chevy spouting off about how "they sure don't make 'em like they used to". He doesn't realize how right he is. Cars from the '50s, including the sainted '57 Chevy, were crap as were most of the cars from the '60s through '90s.

One thing you're wrong about: manual transmissions. If you don't want to drive one, fine. But I'm keeping mine.

Michael Zaite > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/08/2014 at 20:51

2

Not Better or Worse, Just Different.

More people need to understand this. For Everything.