By "Modern", We Actually Meant From the Modern Era

"for Michigan" (formichigan) 09/15/2015 at 17:32 • Filed to: front page, aotd

1

28

On !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , we have a list of “modern” cars that includes:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Lada Niva

Debuted in 1977. Developed by a nation that has always been a little behind the rest of the civilized world in automotive technology.

Ford Crown Victoria

Panther platform debuted in 1978. Last body on frame passenger car sold in the US. Production ended nearly a decade ago.

Jeep Wrangler

As modern as !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Full Size Pickups

As modern as a JK Wrangler. Ford could maybe get a pass for having an aluminum-bodied, twin-turbocharged pickup. But really, any full-size pickup is just a better-built version of what they’ve been selling us for 40 years.

Apparently I’m alone in considering contemporary pickups to be “old school”. Y’all really could use to read the final paragraph too, so it’s bold now.

Not that I’m finding fault with any of these cars for being what they are (except maybe the Crown Vic), but none of them are really all that “modern”. These cars also account for half the list...

dogisbadob > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:35

4

Yeah, they like to change the question a lot when making AOTD.

The Panther stopped production just three years ago, not 10.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:36

0

By the standard of modern meaning still produced, I’m okay with the Niva, full size trucks, etc.

Jcarr > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:37

2

I don’t know, by your logic just about any car can be found to be not modern for one reason or another.

Most of these (I know nothing about the Lada) have modern fuel injection/ignition/emissions control systems, computer control, loads of electronics, etc.

I’m ok with all of these.

Justin Hughes > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:38

0

I don’t know - with the exception of the Lada, the rest of them are still easily obtainable today. The Lada is a bit more rare (especially in the US), but the others are still widely available. The only other one not still in production is the Crown Vic, but since Ford made eleventy zillion of them a good cheap one is just a quick Craigslist search away.

Party-vi > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:39

2

I can’t register any of those as classics, so I’d say they’re all modern. Stop being a turd in the punch bowl :P

crowmolly > Jcarr 09/15/2015 at 17:39

1

A modern full size pickup in particular is not basic.

Party-vi > Jcarr 09/15/2015 at 17:40

2

We should disqualify all cars with OHV and OHC technology since they’re both at least 110 years old at this point. Modern indeed!

not for canada - australian in disguise > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:43

1

Production ended nearly a decade ago.

Jeez, didn’t realize 2011 was already nearly a decade ago, time really flies eh?

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:43

0

I mean the Corolla is on the list so....

for Michigan > dogisbadob 09/15/2015 at 17:44

2

They stopped selling to the public in 2008, which is where I got the “almost a decade” figure.

Didn’t realize fleet sales lasted until 2012.

lonestranger > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:48

0

any full-size pickup is just a better-built version of what they’ve been selling us for 40 years

By that logic, any and every vehicle ever made is just a better-built version of what they’ve been selling us for 130 years. I honestly don’t know why you don’t consider a vehicle introduced within the last two years to be modern.

for Michigan > Jcarr 09/15/2015 at 17:49

0

Actually, pickups, truck-based SUVs and vans, and the Wrangler are pretty much the only cars in production (in the US) that I would consider to be old school.

The way we design and build passenger cars has evolved significantly over the last 40 years. Trucks are another story.

BlazinAce - Doctor of Internal Combustion > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:49

0

I think by modern they meant stuff you can still buy new or could no more than, I dunno, a decade ago. I haven’t checked the article yet, but the first thing that comes to mind is something that you can buy now, and easily work on.

for Michigan > Justin Hughes 09/15/2015 at 17:50

0

Modern is not that same as easily obtainable or still in production.

for Michigan > Party-vi 09/15/2015 at 17:51

1

Your face is a turd in the punch bowl! :P

dogisbadob > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:51

0

Yup, and in fact, many taxi fleets and police departments were stockpiling just months before Sandy. A large swath of NYC taxi 2012 Panthers being hoarded in a Hoboken parking lot were flooded by the hurricane.

for Michigan > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 09/15/2015 at 17:52

0

But current production of an old design doesn’t make that design new...

Jcarr > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 17:54

2

I respectfully disagree. You can’t take a 40-year-old Dodge pickup and tow 30,000 lbs with it. They may still be body-on-frame, but that’s really the only “old school” thing about them. Everything from the drivetrain to the interior to the metallurgy of the frame is significantly different from 40 years ago.

crowmolly > Jcarr 09/15/2015 at 17:57

0

I’m with you.

Body-on-frame and general shape? Sure. Everything else is modern almost down to the bolt head markings.

Even the last of the Gen-I based SBC engines had a very efficient heart shaped combustion chamber design.

for Michigan > not for canada - australian in disguise 09/15/2015 at 17:58

0

If you count fleet sales.

I was going by the end of sales to the public in 2008, which was nearly a decade ago.

Raphael Orlove > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 18:07

2

the trick to buying a new car that’s easy to work on is to buy a new car that’s actually old

this seems like fair advice

I bought a car from the ‘70s that was designed in the ‘30s. It is as new as old a car as I could find. You can still buy that ethos today, like with the current Corolla, or with the cars you mentioned.

I know what you mean about it looking weird, but I think it’s fine.

not for canada - australian in disguise > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 18:16

0

Really?

The only thing NOT modern about modern full-size pickups is the body on frame.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 18:16

0

It comes down somewhat to definition of terms. Is it the featureset that’s modern? The overall design? (If overall design, what qualifies?) The date of current design?

A full-size truck is modern in every conceivable way other than some idea of what modernity consists of in terms of platform - it’s supposed to be what, unibody? FWD? Is there a “more modern” way of achieving its design goals that is both capable and practical, and is its precise platform really that old? I submit the answers are no and no. You could go with the all-new Transit, for gosh sakes, but apart from having its chassis rails welded on, it’s not strikingly different, and it’s an all-new platform.

Going the other way, a Matra Rancho could be considered super-modern - a crossover with FWD drivetrain, steel structure, composite body panels, plastic lower body cladding, modern safety features, and a rounded design that while starting to age, looks perfectly at home on the road next to most GM products. Oh wait, they stopped making these in ‘84. Shit, this “modern design” stuff is hard.

There’s really nothing to be said regarding modernity other than you have to consider the sum of features present and all design factors, along with design age. You can’t disqualify modernity based on a cherry-pick, because the definitions rapidly become hopelessly useless. A ladder frame is no less modern than a unibody when it’s being used for the right reason - no more than a pushrod engine is automatically inferior. An atavistic design from 1999 is not axiomatically more modern than a forward-reaching one from 1989. A ‘99 Lexus can have a different mix of features than a ‘10 base model Toyota, and you can argue all day about the importance of this or that modern features. Those little features don’t exist in a vacuum.

Going back even to the Niva, there’s a Chevy version. It has a modern interior and exterior, with a heavily revised second generation coming out soon. That design will date from, well, now, will feature many new elements and a drivetrain designed expressly for it alone, has a perfectly modern fuel-injected PSA engine... but due to its DNA has the same overall platform arrangement as the classic one. I have no problem at all calling it or the first generation a modern vehicle. None. Yet it’s recognizably a Niva. Sometimes if it isn’t broken, you don’t fix it.

Ike > dogisbadob 09/15/2015 at 19:29

1

No! Now our strategic panther platform reserve! Ruined!

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Jcarr 09/15/2015 at 21:29

0

The Lada’s had to be kept up to date in terms of EU emissions standards, on-board diagnostics, etc. It’s got everything under the hood required to operate any other new car’s engine. I’d count that as modern, even though the shell and drivetrain are still basically the same as they were thirty years ago.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > for Michigan 09/15/2015 at 21:59

0

I suppose the Niva isn’t modern in terms of safety, but it’s built using modern construction techniques and it’s got everything under the hood any other modern car has (with the likely exceptions of a/c and cruise-control components) as it has to meet the same emissions and diagnostic standards as any other new car. Sure, it’s got a more traditional layout than the typical crossover, with a longitudinal engine and solid rear axle, but then so did the KJ Liberty. Beyond outward appearances (and only two doors, although four-door Niva’s are available) the Niva really isn’t all that different from a no-options early Libby. Unibody, ifs, etc. the biggest difference is a lack of plastic all over the outside and under the hood, although even that’s been somewhat addressed - see the Lada 4x4 Urban, as pictured above... frankly it’s more modern-looking than the Wrangler. Once the Soviet Union fell, being cheap wasn’t enough to keep the Niva relevant, and it’s actually been keeping up pretty well apart from that old shell, with significant upgrades every seven years or so.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > for Michigan 09/21/2015 at 19:15

0

I’ve got an unreasonable desire to take one of those off roading.

pjhusa > for Michigan 09/29/2015 at 16:55

0

the niva has alloys?

i would take it

(trying to type like orlove)

(it’s not working)

(whyyy)