Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Brakes dont work good

The last line of defense is the grappling hook with 50’ of chain… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


My mechanic gives me the option of fixing inspections issues myself, taking it somewhere else (for tires), or just letting him do it

1 Like

I did check for that.
No deal there. No loss of fluid, and no fluid in the vacuum line from the power booster to the engine.

I pulled all the plugs and checked them, and they were obviously all clean, dry, and firing.

See, now there is a real answer.
I like this answer, because it shows exactly how much better cars were thought out back in the day.

Why on earth a fail safe like that would not become standard fare is beyond me.

I haven’t looked at your other posts. I’m gonna assume you did a good job bleeding the brakes. A new brake line and a pedal going to the floor is sometimes air in the line. Will the pedal pump up if you pump it a few times?
As an alternative theory, try removing the vacuum booster line temporarily from the booster and plug the vacuum hose. The brakes should work but just with very hard pedal. See if you’re losing fluid.
It’s possible that booster vacuum line is drying of fluid from a large amount of air coming thru.
What was the answer you liked? I didn’t see it. Could be good too.

That is because Hudson’s mechanical backup brake system was notorious for becoming inoperative after just a few years, due to rust and corrosion. Cars in “the good old days” usually had pretty severe rust problems after just a few years.

Cars better in the old days ? Not really . Fail safe system ? You have to be kidding.

As I already pointed-out, Hudson’s mechanical backup brake system was extremely problematic–and usually inoperative–after just a few years of use, due to rust & corrosion. That hardly makes for a fail-safe system.

Well, cars back then were only designed to last for just a few years.

And corrosion is nothing that proper lubrication would not prevent.

So any failure would be due to operater error.

You know, cars used to come with a tool kit and a manual.

Now everyone knows nothing, drives them till they break, then just buys a new one.

So much for anyone fixing anything themselves or being innovative.

They did? When? I’ve not seen one, except for BMW.

Nothing new there , not everyone in the history of vehicles was a mechanic or even new what service they should do .


If that is the case, then…

… isn’t accurate. A well-thought-out car would have been designed for more than just a few years of use.

Yep, old cars were GREAT…for three years, then you junked them…

You realize you’re on a board full of people who fix cars themselves, right? I mean, this is “Car Talk,” not “Helpless Nimrod Talk.”

As to throwing cars away when they break, not too many of your ancient cars made it 250,000 miles. Nowadays, that’s pretty routine. So much for that theory.

If you like driving old cars and refuse to replace it with something modern for your own reasons, rational or not, more power to you.

But don’t come on here whining about the natural problems experienced when daily driving old busted cars and then say people are foolish for pointing out that your decision making is what’s leading to your disquiet.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


You must not have ever lived in the rust belt. Cars built today don’t rust nearly as they did even 30 years ago. There have been major advances in the way vehicles are designed and manufactured.

HMMM…Then we shouldn’t have any mechanics. I live in a small town with 5 shops that fix cars.

Cars today last a lot lot longer then they did 30-40 years ago. They are safer, pollute less and much better mpg. We’ve had no problem keeping 5 different vehicles well past 300k miles with not a ton of maintenance. Mainly just PM.

Not in a long time. Buy a vehicle that doesn’t need a tool kit. My wifes 96 Accord first repair was at about 240k miles ($4 for a radio knob). Prior to that it was only PM.

However, the OP claimed, in one of his earlier posts, that the cars of yesteryear were much safer because they weren’t made of recycled soda cans–or something to that effect. When I posted a video comparing the collapse of a '59 Chevy–complete with fatal penetration of the passenger compartment–when it collided with a late-model Chevy Malibu (which protected its passenger cabin admirably), the OP never reacted/responded to that post of mine.

But… I guess that it’s not possible for someone respond to factual information when he already has his mind made up, based on the misinformation that he–somehow–believes.


My 71 VW Bus came with a tool kit. The excellent engineering from Hudson Packard, Studebaker Kaiser and Nash did not save them because customers did not perceive the value compared to the annual styling
changes introduced by GM. It did not cost GM anywhere as much per car to change style as the independents because GM wore out their tooling in a year and had to replace it anyway. New looking styling sold cars.

1 Like

Yea - I’ve seen that video before. And 20-30 years ago I too believed that cars from the 50’s and 60’s were safer. They are NOT. Not even close.

The correct response for “They don"t make them like they used to.” is thank God for that.

My first car had a flathead 6 and got 18 mpg -on the road. It was considered quite good fuel mileage at the time. It was not unusual to see three year old cars covered in rust. The brand did not matter, I saw plenty of rusty Cadillacs. The customary time to own a new car was thee years. My father in law bought a 53 Plymouth Wagon, three years later, he had the rust holes fixed and the car painted. Two years later he bought a new one because the car was covered in rust and was full of holes.

I still live in the same climate, the roads are more heavily salted than they were in 53 and more corrosive chemicals are added but my Camry the was purchased new in 2011 has not a rust spot on it. Since 2011, I have done only maintenance and one $12.95 windshield washer pump.

I love old cars, the style, the space, the innovations, the differences between them. But part of their appeal is that so few of them survived and it is wondeful to see ones that miraculously survived or were lovingly restored but they are more art than transportation.