My FRS has the same visibility as my Gen2 Integra's did...which is very good. Chassis is way better in the FR-S though... My 98 Camaro had not so good visibility, probably the worst of any vehicle I've had... then again it was car prepared for track with the racing seat mounted to the floor so I could have a perfect driving position (but put my eye height not much above the top of the door height) and the top of the roll bar and clone SS spoiler took up 2/3 of the rear view... LOL
Regarding 90s cars, there was some awesome, but as others have said, the crap is mostly forgotten. This time last year I got to spend a month ot so working in a car logistics yard, and as a result was driving a wide variety of brand new cars fresh off the boat. Some things I got into and shuddered and though god cars are crap now days, a few of the others I got into and was very impressed. For example, 2014 volvos and Lexus were much nicer in terms of interior finish and general layout than the same model mercs, BMW's and Audi's. That said, not all cars by a single manufacturer are created equal.
From a "I like to do my own mechanical work" stand point, I pretty much have no interest in dealing with anything post 2000.
Being a former mechanic I get asked by people why I drive a 30 year old Mazda ute, and currently I'm daily driving a 94 Suzuki swift gti. My answer, cheap parts, easy to work on and in the event that something major goes wrong, easy and cheap to replace. I hate the amount of things in newer cars that are non serviceable or part of an assembly only. This was even becoming a problem in the 90s. I mean having to throw away a whole wheel hub because they are fitted with non serviceable, non replaceable bearings is just bollocks.
In reply to Ian F:
sadly with much gear skipping from 1st, 3rd to 5th and reaching across with my left arm the majority of the time (all the time to 5th). If I think I'll get an extended run in 2nd or 4th I'll go into them, leave it and left foot brake as needed to stay in the happy spot. It's ugly...
In reply to drummerfromdefleopard:
Cute. Although I would expect you to spell the name right. 
My touchstones for this are the 1990 Miata and the FRS. The 90 Miata was a much better place to spend time as a driver.
Not that the FRS does not do wonderful things, its just that it is so intrusive. Between the traction control, antilock brakes and the tire pressure warning lights being on all the time (cause snow tires) and lord knows how many body modules, I realize that I am not the one driving; just a passenger getting a good ride.
I have a feeling that the data-logging that goes on in the background of new cars has a negative subliminal effect on how I feel about new cars. I feel that they will be used against me in some way shape or form; I don't believe anyone collects data for your benefit.
As to the visibility thing, hell yeah, it absolutely sucks in the FRS. God herself knows not where the front of the air-dam in on the car. You take your life in your own hands if you lurk around the quarter panel of the twins while driving in traffic.
yamaha wrote:pilotbraden wrote:Did you at least do a barrel roll once in the Learjet?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.
To the left or the right?
Hungary Bill wrote: A similar music thread had a post that could be summed up as "no, GOOD old music is better than music today. You just dont hear the old E36 M3 music anymore" I guess you could say "old GOOD cars are preferable to most most of the cars rolling off the line today because all the old E36 M3 cars have died". Really, any old car on the road today was loved. Love keeps these things on the road when they should have died and been crushed years ago (Capt. Reynolds). We're all biased in the sense that we seek these cars out because we love them too. Let time take its toll and then make the comparison again. When time has killed all the Avengers, fat-500's, Vibes, etc and only the "loved" cars remain we'll look at the FRS/BRZ, the Miata, 4c, F-type, etc and say "damn man, they made some motherberkeleying good cars back in 2010. This E36 M3 they're trying to get us to buy today..." Because time filters out the crap. You don't hear anyone here saying "aw man, my 1987 Cadillac Cimmaron was the proverbial E36 M3!" And I'm with ya, pre-1994ish cars (up to 1994 because of the FD/supra/z) are where it's at
The '77 320i was a quite fun little car to bomb around in.....but that was due to the hilarious bodyroll
NOHOME wrote: My touchstones for this are the 1990 Miata and the FRS. The 90 Miata was a much better place to spend time as a driver. Not that the FRS does not do wonderful things, its just that it is so intrusive. Between the traction control
http://www.ft86speedfactory.com/mig-86-traction-vsc-eliminator-2007.html
Also with regards to visibility, I'll take it considering how much stiffer and safer the cars are.
(PS I'm amazed that you guys never tire of bitching about new cars)
I always felt the 90s cars have just enough electronics comfort features to be comfortable daily driving and still engaging to drive without the electronic nannys, but still have some safety items like airbags and ABS brakes.
Although a car like the BRZ and miata are good modern options.
All I have to say is a Fit is a fun twistys car with a fat rear sway bar and the right tires 
aw614 wrote: I always felt the 90s cars have just enough electronics comfort features to be comfortable daily driving and still engaging to drive without the electronic nannys, but still have some safety items like airbags and ABS brakes. Although a car like the BRZ and miata are good modern options.
Back in the 90's, they thought that simpler cars from the 70s were better- none of that fancy engine control stuff. Plus none of those nanny things like ABS or air bags.
Then again, in the 70's, they dreamed of the 60's, since they could have big blocks. etc.
And I imagine that the 30's, someone complained that auto spark advance was the worst thing ever for control. Sometime then, someone also complained about hydraulic brakes instead of good, one can see move, cable brakes.
Picking a time that is "best" is always relative.
If you want engaging, with a great view of the road, feels fast at low speeds, etc- go get a Model T.
Ian F wrote: In reply to tuna55: And now it's rare to have a tire blow out.
Not to mention, I had a tire blow out in my '66 Dart at well above 55 - the car remained quite under control and I calmly pulled it to the side. (Although it may have been a different story if I'd immediately jammed on the brakes or otherwise done something moronic, instead of slowly pondering, "Hmmm, I think that noise is a tire that just blew out. Ok, I guess I had better mosey on over to the shoulder and come to a safe stop".)
alfadriver wrote:aw614 wrote: I always felt the 90s cars have just enough electronics comfort features to be comfortable daily driving and still engaging to drive without the electronic nannys, but still have some safety items like airbags and ABS brakes. Although a car like the BRZ and miata are good modern options.Back in the 90's, they thought that simpler cars from the 70s were better- none of that fancy engine control stuff. Plus none of those nanny things like ABS or air bags. Then again, in the 70's, they dreamed of the 60's, since they could have big blocks. etc. And I imagine that the 30's, someone complained that auto spark advance was the worst thing ever for control. Sometime then, someone also complained about hydraulic brakes instead of good, one can see move, cable brakes. Picking a time that is "best" is always relative. If you want engaging, with a great view of the road, feels fast at low speeds, etc- go get a Model T.
And I get your point. I guess I should have stated main gripe of the newer electronics are in cars like the GTI where you cant shut it off when you kind of want it off, fine for daily driving, but really annoying when driving it aggressively at an autox I've felt it jolt the car hard to straighten it out, yet Im still faster in it, but still feel the car is making me drive faster hiding my driving flaws that are more apparent driving my integra imo.
Then again, I think Porsche has done a good job blending the stability control with performance on their new cars.
alfadriver wrote:aw614 wrote: I always felt the 90s cars have just enough electronics comfort features to be comfortable daily driving and still engaging to drive without the electronic nannys, but still have some safety items like airbags and ABS brakes. Although a car like the BRZ and miata are good modern options.Back in the 90's, they thought that simpler cars from the 70s were better- none of that fancy engine control stuff. Plus none of those nanny things like ABS or air bags. Then again, in the 70's, they dreamed of the 60's, since they could have big blocks. etc. And I imagine that the 30's, someone complained that auto spark advance was the worst thing ever for control. Sometime then, someone also complained about hydraulic brakes instead of good, one can see move, cable brakes. Picking a time that is "best" is always relative. If you want engaging, with a great view of the road, feels fast at low speeds, etc- go get a Model T.
I still have my 1967 MGB GT and no way is I advocating for a return to that era! Car of the 60's are E36 M3 boxes if you look under the cool factor. Kinda like chocolate covered turds.
I guess it is true that as we get older and give less berkeleys about the new technology, we tend to run for the shelter of where we peaked from a technology standpoint.
You can pick and choose good and bad from any era. I generally think modern cars aren't as visceral as their older counterparts---- but then I get behind the wheel of a C6 Z06, or an F-Type R Jaguar, and wholly crap, those cars peg the visceral meter! 
I'm also one of those guys that has no concern for safety devices.....at all. I feel completely safe driving a 90 Miata, or an 81 Champ, or a motorcycle. I figure as long as I stay alert, and predict what others are doing--- that's the best safety device there is. Sure it isn't a guarantee, but I'll take my chances. I also don't have kids.......so that's a big consideration for most folks. This is why I hold zero value for options like lane change warnings, airbags, automatic braking, rear-view cameras and the like.
For me it's all about visceral communication between car and driver. This is one of the reasons that I prefer driving my old BMW M3 to the brand spanking new M235i we have on staff. The new car does everything better....on paper. In real life though, the older car offers the more communicative experience.....and that's what I enjoy. YMMV
We are living in good times though. There are plenty of fantastic machines available for not much $$:
damn double post!
You'll need to log in to post.
