new cars are faster, more efficient, have more mechanical grip, are more reliable

The thing is when someone tries to build a simpler, more engaging car with lower limits people complain. Subaru did that with the Frisbee twins and people are complaining about the lack of grip and lack of power, even though the grip and power were set so you could enjoy them safely at street legal speeds. Instead of enjoying the car for what it is with it’s lower more intimate specs they immediately start putting on bigger wheels and tires which increase grip but decrease intimacy and feel and start looking for Turbo's and the like. It's a not win for the manufacturers.

Also I'm coming down on the side of 'stop whining' about A pillars. OK, when at a stop light you may need to move your head a couple of inches to see, but as soon as you're moving it's a total non-issue. Your brain knows what it could see through the front windscreen and subconsciously fills in the blanks for the 0.001 of a sec your view is obscured as it's behind the A pillar before it appears in your peripheral vision in the side window. You should be aware of any potential dangers and acting accordingly already. If something comes so fast that you never had a chance of seeing it while it was behind the A pillar someone, either you or what's about to hit you, was going too fast anyway. I'm looking way way down the road when I drive, not just in front of the hood. Your peripheral and subconscious is filling in anything within 30 feet anyway even at 5 mph.

I think this is relevant-

I once drove my company E250 van through Riding Mountain park in Manitoba, and had glorious fun. A couple of years later, I took my 82 Z28 with Comp TA's and Konis and big sway bars through, and I was bored to death.

Note for the haters- This was in the 80's when my Z28 was a pretty darn speedy car.

In reply to Chris_V:

I think you're losing sight of the original post, which was pointing out 90s cars.

I'll take my 90's Samurais and Cheokees over the more modern versions of these any day of the week.

3 words:

Drive By Wire.

I miss my Turbo Firefly I've tried to find another one, but they are all gone. If I ever want one, I'll have to build it from a rust free shell. And I will always know its not a "true" turbo model

Oh well, I suppose. Instead of buying a house this year I decided to buy a new condo, so its looking like either a CTSV or C63 AMG. #FWP

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Also I'm coming down on the side of 'stop whining' about A pillars. OK, when at a stop light you may need to move your head a couple of inches to see, but as soon as you're moving it's a total non-issue. Your brain knows what it could see through the front windscreen and subconsciously fills in the blanks for the 0.001 of a sec your view is obscured as it's behind the A pillar before it appears in your peripheral vision in the side window. You should be aware of any potential dangers and acting accordingly already. If something comes so fast that you never had a chance of seeing it while it was behind the A pillar someone, either you or what's about to hit you, was going too fast anyway. I'm looking way way down the road when I drive, not just in front of the hood. Your peripheral and subconscious is filling in anything within 30 feet anyway even at 5 mph.

I (at least) wasn't griping about the A-pillars specifically. I'm talking more about beltlines so high you can't comfortably rest your arm on the window sill when the window's down. I'm talking about rear sail panels (or whatever they're called) that could obstruct Melissa McCarthy. I'm talking about rear glass that is dang near horizontal. I'm talking about front and rear body lines that give you no clue as to where the front and rear bumpers are.

I like cars that look like this:

Sure, it's huge, but I guarantee you, if you laid a soda can on the road, and told me what tire to hit it with, I could do it.

Gearheadotaku wrote: In the past you had to DRIVE the car, now you just press the start button and make suggestions. Ask a pilot if he'd rather fly a 747 or the latest Airbus computer controlled by wire thingy.

My name is Braden and I have Luddite tendencies. Boeing 747 is my vote.

In the mid 90's I started flying the Lear 24, hauling auto parts. Our airplanes were 30 years old and well maintained but the autopilots were unpredictable and needed continuous repair. When you engaged the autopilot you did not know what it might do. Sometimes it pitched down or up, sometimes it rolled left or right and occasionally it would do as you asked. So we flew them by hand, usually 8-10 hours per day, in any sort of awful weather, day or night. We got to be pretty good at flying.

I see pilots just getting into jets now that as soon as the landing gear is up the very competent autopilot is engaged and stays engaged until the landing is assured. I consider that to be system monitoring, not flying. They are woefully unprepared for a major electrical problem.

Modern cars are getting to be similar, the machine does the "hard" work of being aware and the driver does not have to pay attention.

The joy that I get from flying and driving is mastering the machinery and making it perform at it's peak from my skill.

Chris_V wrote: Obviously no one here has ever driven a modern supercar, either...

define modern and supercar? Does a 918, 997 GT3, 991 GT3, 650S, MP4-12C or GTR count? They're not the type of vehicle that I'm referring to in the original post, but if I'm going to compare them I wouldn't hesitate to call a 930T or F40 more engaging, though far, far below the performance threshold.

Swank Force One wrote: In reply to volvoclearinghouse: Exactly. I get paranoid and freaked out with the blind spots a miata with a soft top gives me. Put me in a new car, and i damn near have a nervous breakdown. I can't handle it.

I drove lifted 4x4 trucks and a conversion van for a number of years. It forced me to learn how to properly set-up and use mirrors.

rcutclif wrote: what did you drive when you were 16? any nostalgia going on?

nope … what I was driving when I was 16 was Dad's 1950 Plymouth, flathead 6 (maybe 100 hp) 3 on the tree

In reply to volvoclearinghouse:

that bridge is beautiful! I love the Roman aqueduct inspired arches. I'm betting there's some solid driving roads near by as well based on the topography.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: I (at least) wasn't griping about the A-pillars specifically. I'm talking more about beltlines so high you can't comfortably rest your arm on the window sill when the window's down. I'm talking about rear sail panels (or whatever they're called) that could obstruct Melissa McCarthy. I'm talking about rear glass that is dang near horizontal. I'm talking about front and rear body lines that give you no clue as to where the front and rear bumpers are.

Exactly. It's more than just A-pillars, it's everything. I know why it's happening, and I know there's nothing the automakers can do about it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Keep in mind cars of today need to be safe and smooth at speeds 20-30 mph higher than any legal speed limit in the country 30 years ago. When my Civic was built it was built with the idea that 55 was the maximum speed limit. Now the freeway in front of my house is 70 and the toll road west of here is 85. Traveling at 85-90 in a car that was built to cruise at 55 is certainly engaging. Hop in a car from the 40's and try it. You'll engage yourself right off the road.

mazdeuce wrote: Keep in mind cars of today need to be safe and smooth at speeds 20-30 mph higher than any legal speed limit in the country 30 years ago. When my Civic was built it was built with the idea that 55 was the maximum speed limit. Now the freeway in front of my house is 70 and the toll road west of here is 85. Traveling at 85-90 in a car that was built to cruise at 55 is certainly engaging. Hop in a car from the 40's and try it. You'll engage yourself right off the road.

This is a good point. There was a twilight zone (bear with me) episode where a woman had a flat and the first guy who happened down the road was amazed that she had survived a blowout at 55 mph. The kicker in the episode was that she didn't, and it was her ghost, but the point is that it used to be surprising to survive a single car accident at 55 mph.

In reply to tuna55:

And now it's rare to have a tire blow out.

There's one thing old cars have that most new cars don't - character.

Those thick pillars are mighty annoying in parking lot maneuvers. Same with 90degree turns in the city (very easy to lose track of a pedestrian on the corner who walked into the blind spot while the driver is looking in the other direction). High sills are incredibly frustrating for the vertically challenged, especially if the seat has no height adjustment or the driver hates jacking the seat up.

Overall modern cars are better on paper they "feel" like they want to take the driver/owner out of the equation as much as possible for fear of liability.

Paper statistics only go so far in human or enthusiast satisfaction. We're naturally attracted to "flaws" otherwise we'd be super homogenous an all be driving base model camaccortimabu's and bored out of our minds

True.

There are times when character is fun: Cruising into work early in the morning to avoid the traffic and then taking a nice, leisurely drive to a local car gathering afterwards.

Then there are times when "character" is not so fun: sitting in stop-and-go traffic on I-95 in a car where you're looking at the door-handles of a Civic sitting in your own stew with no a/c and piss-poor ventilation.

The only car I've owned that came close to bridging the gap was my E30. It's a shame that car broke damn near every time I drove it.

Interesting complaining about something people have been complaining about since the advent of new car models.

Moreso as I didn't think there was a requirement that anyone had to buy a new car. You are more than allowed to spend new car money on a very, very good old car.

The problem with that is that you wont have anything to complain about.

Honeslty, I don't remember that a 1988 accord had any character, nor did the '83 626 that we owned, or the POS Vega that it replaced. Then again, people fantasize that the worst car ever, the VW bug, was some great car. If that's the character you are looking for- you are more than welcome to take all of them. I do enjoy racing my GTV more than my Miatas- but that's because it's more difficult- and I enjoy that. It's not better, and never will be as fast. On the the other hand, the Miata is a far easier car to live with.

But at least if you have nothing else to comlain about, you can make stuff up- like character.

Subaru managed to build their latest WRX without ginormous A-pillars:

At least you're also getting a useful car for that money, as the 2015 WRX is an embodiment of practicality. Visibility is of particular note, with thin pillars, enormous door-mounted mirrors, a standard rearview camera and a greenhouse that challenges Biosphere 2 for glass space. The view ahead, with its low dash and right-there pavement is indicative of Japanese cars from the 1990s and earlier.

Source: http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/wrx/2015/road-test1.html

tuna55 wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: Keep in mind cars of today need to be safe and smooth at speeds 20-30 mph higher than any legal speed limit in the country 30 years ago. When my Civic was built it was built with the idea that 55 was the maximum speed limit. Now the freeway in front of my house is 70 and the toll road west of here is 85. Traveling at 85-90 in a car that was built to cruise at 55 is certainly engaging. Hop in a car from the 40's and try it. You'll engage yourself right off the road.

This is a good point. There was a twilight zone (bear with me) episode where a woman had a flat and the first guy who happened down the road was amazed that she had survived a blowout at 55 mph. The kicker in the episode was that she didn't, and it was her ghost, but the point is that it used to be surprising to survive a single car accident at 55 mph.

There's lots of old movies with similar anachronistic references. For example, in "It's a Mad (x4) World", one of the early scenes shows them driving a '61 Imperial at probably 50 mph on some twisty mountain roads, and they're all over the road.

Or everyone's favorite, "Duel". They regularly show the speedometer of the Plymouth Valiant Dennis Weaver is driving, and at 55 or 60 miles per hour he's swerving shoulder-to-shoulder.

I think these were both overblown for dramatic effect. I used to regularly whip my bone-stock'63 Dart through the twisties, and it was a very fun and good tool for doing so. Then again, modern tires help, I'm sure- even if they are 13 inchers.

Still, by the 1980's, at least, car suspension technologies (and cars in general) had advanced to the point where they're pretty acceptable devices for pretty much any sort of driving. I'd take my previously mentioned 1980 Mercedes cross country without hesitation, and feel confident in it's dynamic abilities and be comfortable driving it. Alfadriver's right- you can buy pretty much any old car you want and press it into service as a DD. Safety/ crashworthiness aside, basically anything built since the late 60's will perform this task reasonably well.

stuart in mn wrote: I have a copy of Car Life magazine from 1961. There was a letter to the editor from a woman complaining about the family car; her husband bought it in 1929, and refused to replace it with anything newer because he thought new cars weren't as good as his old one. In that case, the car in question was 31 years old. I thought it was pretty funny, but then I remembered I'm driving around in a 29 year old car.

Driving a 1929 MY auto in 1961, I'd argue, was a much more daring feat that driving a 1961 car even today, 54 years later. The advances made in those earlier 31 years far eclipse those made since the 1960's to today.

pilotbraden wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: In the past you had to DRIVE the car, now you just press the start button and make suggestions. Ask a pilot if he'd rather fly a 747 or the latest Airbus computer controlled by wire thingy.

My name is Braden and I have Luddite tendencies. Boeing 747 is my vote. In the mid 90's I started flying the Lear 24, hauling auto parts. Our airplanes were 30 years old and well maintained but the autopilots were unpredictable and needed continuous repair. When you engaged the autopilot you did not know what it might do. Sometimes it pitched down or up, sometimes it rolled left or right and occasionally it would do as you asked. So we flew them by hand, usually 8-10 hours per day, in any sort of awful weather, day or night. We got to be pretty good at flying. I see pilots just getting into jets now that as soon as the landing gear is up the very competent autopilot is engaged and stays engaged until the landing is assured. I consider that to be system monitoring, not flying. They are woefully unprepared for a major electrical problem. Modern cars are getting to be similar, the machine does the "hard" work of being aware and the driver does not have to pay attention. The joy that I get from flying and driving is mastering the machinery and making it perform at it's peak from my skill.

Did you at least do a barrel roll once in the Learjet?

Tom_Spangler wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote: As long as we're dumping on new cars... My biggest problem with them isn't the aesthetics, or the price, or the lack of "soul" (whatever the heck that means). It's the visibility. I don't drive a modern car very often- my daily driver is a 1980 Mercedes- but when I do (usually a rental, or someone else's car) I'm struck by just how little I can actually see. I'm used to being able to pick out the corners of whatever I'm driving pretty easily. I've driven a lot of older (pre 1980's) cars, and all but a few of them have been relatively "easy" cars to drive in that regard. But put me behind the wheel of something like a Honda Crosstour, and..holy crap, it's like I'm sitting in a hole. Everyone likes to blame smartpohones and texting for accidents, and I think that's true to an extent...now couple driver inattention with poor visibility, blind spots that could swallow a Fiat, and these hugely tall beltlines, small greenhouses, and bloated body lines, and it's no wonder I find myself honking at someone every other day for drifting over into my lane. Unfortunately, sitting in a hole is "safe", so I expect the trend of cars resembling tanks to continue. In 30 years, I expect we'll all be driving through little slits in the windshield, with cameras pointed everywhere and little monitors inside to show us what we're supposed to avoid crashing into.

I'm usually a "defend new cars" guy, but this is 100% dead on. New cars have terrible visibility because of the thick pillars and high sills. Some are worse than others, but it is a major issue, IMO. And it's part of the reason I drive a pickup. Things like blind-spot warnings and rearview cameras help, but you still can't beat a nice, open greenhouse.

Hates on new sports cars, drives a truck.

Oh the lolz.