I would have drove my old Chevelle everyday if I could, but it was a garage queen in bad weather. That’s about 90% of the time here in Ohio. Unlike most classic car owners however, I would pop in to the grocery store, or run errands in it when the weather was nice outside; most just keep it cooped up in the garage and only bring it out 3 or 4 times a year, if that.
There’s this guy in Pelham NH that owns something like 15 classic cars. Huge garage. I use to drive by and every once in a while he’d one of his cars parked out front…then one day I drove by and the garage door was open…there were 5 cars on the left…and 5 cars lined on the right…and each of those cars were under lifts that had cars on them…All the cars are completely restored…they look MINT.
Mike, the big question…what does he drive every day?
I too know quite a few folks with garages full of classic vehicles. One in particular has some of the most expensive cars I’ve ever laid eyes on.(Ferrari’, Mercedes 300 and a couple of French superstars:)~ ) He drives a later model BMW 5 series everyday because it’s SAFE, fuel efficient and most of all…RELIABLE. What looks good isn’t always the best decision. It feels good too, but that still doesn’t make it right! JCA
Not sure…Something was parked in his driveway…but I never paid attention…I know he doesn’t drive any of them during the winter.
I understand what you guys are saying about synthetic. One reason given for oil changes more often than recommended, is the cost compared to the cost of engine repairs is insignificant, and I certainly agree with that.
Yet, though synthetic seems to be much more sludge resistant there seems to be a worry that it, gosh, might cost more. I will say the same things. The small cost is trivial compared to the engine.
We can’t have it both ways. If an owner wants to pay the difference for synthetic, I don’t think it is a big deal. I think bringing in the extra cost of synthetic is a red herring.
The funny thing about my car is that it doesn’t specifically call for full synthetic, just 5w30, but I figure it can’t hurt with the turbo on it. It also says to change it every 4 months for the severe driving, which I have. About the only time I’ll go back to the Mazda dealership is to get the trans fluid changed in a couple years, maybe even the differential fluid changed as well while I’m there.
irlandes, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the cost premium you pay for synthetic is cheaper compared to the cost of an engine. Is that right?
If so, I think that might be a false comparison. Let’s look at a couple scenarios.
Let’s say I use normal conventional oil in my normal (not sludge prone) naturally aspirated car, and I change the oil every 3,000 miles, even though the owner’s manual says I can change it every 7,500 miles. Is my engine going to last longer than the same model owned by a guy who changes his oil every 5,000 miles? Probably not.
Let’s now take the same normal (not sludge prone) naturally aspirated car. I use synthetic oil and change it every 5,000 miles. Is my engine going to last longer than the same model owned by a guy who uses conventional oil and changes his oil every 5,000 miles? Probably not.
In all three of these scenarios (3,000 miles/normal oil, 5,000 miles/normal oil, 5,000 miles/synthetic oil), the engines will probably never suffer a failure as a result of the quality of the oil. The bodies will rust until they are unsafe, or the automatic transmissions will fail, or the engines will overheat, or the oil could leak out. The guy who spends more than twice as much to use synthetic oil will likely see no benefit, unless he lives in a cold climate and can’t use a block heater.
I know I can’t back this up with any real studies, other than the few short term studies that use taxicabs to compare normal oil to synthetic oil. However, there is anecdotal evidence, right here, among those who drive cars with more than 200,000 miles on the odometers. There are those use synthetic oil, and those who don’t, and both groups haven’t experienced any problems related to the quality of the oil.
To move away from oil choices, one thing I do miss about some older vehicles is the relative simplicity of routine maintenance tasks. I have a VW passat, which I enjoy a lot, but to replace a headlamp bulb, I just paid $66 - to a non-dealership mechanic.
Actually, there are both good things and bad things about the way cars were built years, and decades ago. While modern cars have so many safety features that weren’t even thought of decades ago, and have dependable engines (my '02 Chevy Silverado starts on the first crank every time), there is a lot more plastic in today’s vehicles, especially in interiors. My '02 Silverado is no exception, with plastic inner door panels and a plastic covered dashboard; at least it’s got good sheetmetal on the outside, double-side galvanized too. Remember when Toyota first advertised the new-and-improved Tundra in '07, with double-walled bed metal? Big whoop-de-doo! My '02 Silverado has double-wall metal in both the bed and the cab, I know for a fact, and so do all fullsize trucks these days. That’s a good thing, though, because older trucks, 30, 40, 50 years old, had thicker sheetmetal to begin with, but without the rust protection available today. Old trucks also had metal interiors, dashboard included, but their metal door handles and window cranks were not as easy to break either. And, a lot of those older engines were extremely reliable, but maybe some folks have forgotten that. As far as safety in a crash, let’s take a '61 Chevy Apache pickup as an example: as long as you have a good seat belt system to keep you in place, you should do O.K. against another fullsize truck, because you have heavy-gauge sheetmetal all around you, and it’s almost like being inside a tank. A modern 21st-Century pickup, with double-wall construction (good thing since today’s sheetmetal isn’t as thick) will also offer good protection, but you also have airbags for added protection. I guess the point I’m making is that while today’s vehicles are superior in some ways, those of yesteryear are superior in other ways, and many of us like the features offered in both.
ClassicFan62
Even with the thinner metal I’d still rather be in a new truck or car than an old one in a crash. Old trucks didn’t have crumple zones to absorb the impact. And if you think about it, you really don’t want to be in a tank when it crashes, yea the tank will survive, but you might not. If the truck doesn’t absorb the impact that energy is transferred to YOU. I’ve read many cases, both in racing and on the street where in the old days they drove the car or truck away, but the people were dead, true some of the was do to the lack of seat belts, but some were due to the car not absorbing the energy from the crash. Given a choice of a car that will crumple or one that won’t I’ll take the one that will, I’m willing to buy a new car if it protects me better. Here’s a link to a crash test between a “tank” a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. Which car do you want to be in? BTW I don’t consider a car that is only 10 years old to be old. Cars and trucks from the 60 and 70’s are old, cars and truck older then that are basically antiques.
Yes a lot of old engines were reliable, IF you did all the maintenance, but back in the old days how many people did you know who got 200,000 miles out of an engine? Back then a car was basically shot by a 100,000 miles with few exception. Remember ether, when was the last time you used that? Spark plug changes are now at a 100,000 miles, not 15,000 or less, points, distributor never on a new car. At -50 my cars starts right up, plugged in or not. Modern engines are much more reliable, last long and are just plain better then they were.
The double wall construction was more for keeping the outside sheet metal looking nice. Before that a dent from the inside of the bed showed on the outside.
They’ve use plastics in cars for a long time 1939 Pontiac had two cars that used Plexiglas body panels as showcars, in 1941 Henry Ford was experimenting with plastic body panels. His plastic car weighed a 1,000 pounds less than a steel one.
Remember the picture of Henry Ford hitting a car with an ax that was Ford’s personal car with a plastic rear deck lid made to fit it. He liked to demonstrate the strength of the plastic, and the ax he used would fly out of his hands, about 15 ft. (a rubber boot was placed on the sharp end of the ax) into the air. So plastic in itself isn’t bad, its the way it’s being used.
Cars have improved so much in their operation, there seems to be little advantage, other than economy, going to electric. Other than oil changes, can you imaging jumping into a 40/50/60 era car and doing nothing but check ups (as my 02 Prism recommended) for 100k miles ? My early SAABs were like new born infants they required so much care…no way would I want to depend upon a car of old. As a hobby, sure. Life is too short to have to feed a horse to get a few miles miles out of him.
Thanks for the Top Gear video of the Jagler!
I think the video says a lot. Newer cars are far better in every way, except that elusive, vague, and often meaningless commodity called “style.” We have a 1970’s luxury sports model, and even something like a 2011 Nissan Sentra is objectively better for reliability, overall performance, comfort, safety, rustproofing, and even handling. If I were driving cross-country on a tight schedule I’d easily prefer a Hyundai. But the old lady is the only one to drive on a sunny day when we have our cell phone with our towing service and garage pre-programmed in! I don’t know of any modern car that is better for that.
Having said that, our modern cars are kind of binary – they either run well or they don’t run at all. Our old car will limp along even when it’s out of tune, and it’s not too hard to fix most things, but if the computer in a newer car breaks, no amount of duct tape in the world will get it back on the road.
rwee2000, I’d like to thank you for your feedback and also for the uplink showing the crash between a '59 Chevy BelAir and a 2009 Chevy Malibu; the video was very informative and educational. Yeah, come to think of it, in the event of a crash (God forbid) I truly would feel safer in my 2002 Silverado, with its reinforced double-wall sheetmetal, forward crumple zone, and dual airbags, than I would in the previously mentioned heavy-gauge-skinned '61 Apache, which has a lot of un-padded sheetmetal and no airbags in the cab (not to mention the hard-plastic-coated steering wheel).
I also agree with you that 10 years is not old for a vehicle, especially a truck, which is designed for harder use than a car; My Silverado is 9-1/2 and barely broken in! I have no intention of getting rid of it any time soon. People who buy trucks often keep them around for decades to get max usage out of them.
Of course, I do believe that damage received in a parking-lot fender-bender would be more costly to repair on a newer vehicle than on an older one, considering busted plastic and/or crumpled sheetmetal on the newer vehicle and the older one bieng nearly unscathed. But after seeing the video of that offset frontal crash and noting how the '59 BelAir’s interior cabin was pretty well demolished up front, due to lack of crumple zones, I would have to admit that I’d feel safer in the 2009 Malibu. Point well taken.