I had Japanese cars as early as the 70’s. Though they were no where near as good as they are now, at least by then, they were no worse then the American and European cars they competed against.
Early Japanese vehicles were just slightly better mechanically then a comparable American vehicle back in the 70’s. But they also rusted out a LOT earlier. My wifes 1980 Datsun 510 was rusted out in 5 years.
Datsuns and later Nissans always had less quality in their rust protection. Even my wife’s Nissan is starting to rust out at the rocker panels. This car met all the rust perforation specs the government put out.
The Toyota Corona was the first Japanese car in the 60s that was substantially better than any small import except the VW bug. It had a solid engine that could cruise all day long at high speed without burning up. The bodies were solid, and as good as US products. The design was very conservative and many things were copied form the Chevy stovebolt six.
By the mid 80s Japanese cars led in quality and made European cars look rally bad.
Datsuns and later Nissans always had less quality in their rust protection. Even my wife’s Nissan is starting to rust out at the rocker panels. This car met all the rust perforation specs the government put out.
I haven’t seen any problems in later vehicles from Toyota/Nissan or Honda (starting about 1990).
My Dad owned a Corona. It was a decent vehicle. There weren’t a lot of small American vehicles to compare it to back then. Compared to my Dad’s vehicles he had owned (67 Malibu) it seemed to be as reliable. Dad finally gave up the Malibu when the timing chain broke at about 350k miles. Only problems we had with that vehicle was we kept having to replace points every 3-4 months.
The PRICE of a new vehicle will soon reach the point where consumers will DEMAND a 10 year, 100,000mile power-train and rust-through warranty. You won’t be able to sell a car otherwise…
MikeInNH February 6 Report
"I haven’t seen any problems in later vehicles from Toyota/Nissan or Honda (starting about 1990). "
What about the Toyota Tacoma from 1995-2004 or the Tundra from 2000-2003?
Granted, these have become the exception rather than the rule that it was in the 70s and 80s… I actually know of someone who had a mechanic declare a 3 year old 1983 Civic unsafe for the road - the mech wouldn’t even put it on a lift the rust was so bad. Granted, the owner didn’t wax the vehicle, but still 3 years is terribly excessive…
What about the Toyota Tacoma from 1995-2004 or the Tundra from 2000-2003?
Yup you’re right…but that wasn’t normal (hopefully). I wasn’t thinking about frames either…but rather body panels. Usually frames don’t rust out.
The PRICE of a new vehicle will soon reach the point where consumers will DEMAND a 10 year, 100,000mile power-train and rust-through warranty. You won’t be able to sell a car otherwise.
Seems to be there now…At least for the vehicles I buy.
And the sad thing is that the cost of such a warranty is really pretty minimal, simply because vehicles are that much better. IIRC, the cost per vehicle for Chrysler’s “lifetime powertrain warranty” to the company was actually under $200 - part of that because the odds of the warranty being used were low even at Chrysler, and the warranty was nontransferable (just like Hyundai’s 10/100 powertrain coverage), and owners still switch vehicles on average every few years.
But overall from my shopping, I’ve found the biggest driver of sticker price is simply that people are demanding more and more - not so much that the vehicles are getting more expensive. Our 1987 Camry cost $14,000 (and was actually a bit smaller than a current Corolla). My 1997 Taurus cost me about $18,000. My 1998 Camry cost me about $20,000. My 2010 Mazda6 cost me $17,800. The Camry and the 6 are about equally well equipped (more safety features on the 6), the Taurus had a bit more, and the 87 Camry had far less equipment.
Over the course of 25 years to see just a 27% price increase and get countless additional features - ABS, power windows, power doors, remote entry, a full set of airbags (the 87 Camry had none), traction control, stability control, a TON more room, a lot more power, a warranty several times longer, AND get better gas mileage? Count me in for that deal.
If you had Volkswagen’s body rust warranty and Hyundai’s power train warranty you would essentially have a 100,000 mile, 10 year warranty. There is unfortunately a lot of other stuff that has a shorter warranty, but still light years beter than what we had in the 50s and 60s.
Have you noticed that there are very few engine rebuilding shops these days. The engines are more powerful and cars have virtually stopped pulling trailers; that’s now left to trucks. As pointed out elsewhere, the transmission on an auto-equipped car ususally determines when the car will bite the dust. A friend of mine had a near perfect Mazda 626, 18 years old and had the transmission fail. That was the “coupe de grace”, as they say.
Price-wise, my 1965 Dodge Dart GT V8 cost $3115, while my 1988 Chevy Caprice V8 cost $17,500, loaded. The Dart lasted 154,000 miles (13 years) before it rusted out to the point of danger. The Caprice is still running around town after 24 years of faithful service.
As many have pointed out, today’s cars have a life expectancey of at least 20 years and can go wihtout major repairs for at least 200,000 miles. Taking inflation into account today’s cars cost the same, but will last much longer.
Just for reference:
$3115 in 1965 dollars = $22,244 in 2011 dollars
$17,500 in 1988 dollars = $33,275 in 2011 dollars
You can load up an Impala LTZ (the closest thing Chevy has to an old-school Caprice), and you’d be extremely hard pressed to hit the $33,275 mark, even if you paid sticker and declined the rebate, and the Impala is one of the most heavily discounted cars on the market today. I’d wager that it would also be more heavily equipped than a loaded 1988 Caprice, too…
Thanks, eraser. The Caprice was a special order company job car with Positraction, HD suspension, etc. I bought it for myself when it was time to upgrade to newer models. Agree that the standard equipment today is more comprehensive.
All in all you get more car for your money today, as well as longer life. I don’t know what the new Dodge Dart GT will cost, but it will have more standard equipment.
My mom had a 1978 Datsun 280Z…that thing was a rustbucket! And the paint chipped really bad on it and she had to leave the key in the ignition because she said it wouldn’t start otherwise…I don’t know what would cause that but all that car ran pretty good. Not the best, but it got us around.
Rust prevention improved in cars as a by product of unibody construction. With body on frame designs where body panels weren’t load bearing, you could get away with a little rust. Heck, many of today’s pick up trucks still become rust buckets in short order. When the body and frame reinforcements become one, there is no excuse for a wheel to fall off in 5 years of ownership. The public would not put up with it, reduced sales would follow.
Still, we accept rust as inevitable and have bought into to automotive expendibility/replacement lie we have been fed to keep car turnover as a necessary part of our economy. The best automotive engineering happens from a car makers point of view when everything fails, including body rust, at the same time. It has nothing to do longevity. Given these parameters, the Ford Maverick should hold the distinction of one of the best engineered cars of all time !