Modern Cars are Pretty Amazing

We've had similar discussions before here, and I always enjoy them. I don't think I'll ever own a true classic. I'm just too chicken from a safety perspective. Before I was married, I might have said differently, even before my wife was pregnant. Now I just can't justify it. 

I love the question, what makes a car "modern"? To me, a modern car is anything that I can jump in and drive across the country without a second thought about it, that has the following:

• Air conditioning
• A crumple zone
• At least one airbag
• A spot to plug in a cell phone to charge (i.e. cigarette lighter)
• Will not leak (badly, anyways)
• Does not need me to do anything other than fill the gas tank during said cross country trip
• Fuel injected (see point above)

There are exceptions to this, of course, but in general that is my criteria. I think generally anything from 1990 forwards fits this bill; you can even go back to some from the mid-late 70's for some of them (thinking Mercs and Volvo's).

In 1990, a 10 year old car was probably really old. And 100k miles? Time to get rid of it, that thing is on its last legs. Today I DD a car that is 22 years old with 134k miles, and if I didn't live in an emissions state I'd not have to do anything to it other than change the oil in the next 6 months. What is really interesting is that I think this is changing quickly. We had "old cars" (vs. antique cars, which I'm arbitrarily calling pre-war) from probably 1946 through the 80's. Roughly 40 years. This wave, we had "modern safe" cars from the early 80's through the early 90's, when we got OBDii which took us to... well, today, but really the change started 10 years ago. Call it 1.5 generations right there, and in 30 years. Next? Electric. 10 years from now I'll be pretty surprised if the average car doesn't get 45 mpg. And self driving will take over from that pretty soon after.

captdownshift said:

the ND and 2018+ Mustang GT are both amazing modern performance packages for completely different reasons and I feel that both are underappreciated by the market. 

You want an unpopular opinion? The Prius was the most important and highest performing vehicle that we've seen in the last 30 years (with a high sales caveat to said statement).

mtn said:

In 1990, a 10 year old car was probably really old. And 100k miles? Time to get rid of it, that thing is on its last legs. Today I DD a car that is 22 years old with 134k miles, and if I didn't live in an emissions state I'd not have to do anything to it other than change the oil in the next 6 months. What is really interesting is that I think this is changing quickly. We had "old cars" (vs. antique cars, which I'm arbitrarily calling pre-war) from probably 1946 through the 80's. Roughly 40 years. This wave, we had "modern safe" cars from the early 80's through the early 90's, when we got OBDii which took us to... well, today, but really the change started 10 years ago. Call it 1.5 generations right there, and in 30 years. Next? Electric. 10 years from now I'll be pretty surprised if the average car doesn't get 45 mpg. And self driving will take over from that pretty soon after.

You can see that if you look at the average age of the US fleet. It was stable for a long time, and it's recently started really stretching out. I've posted the numbers before and I'll let someone else do the Googling this time, but it's something like 11.6 years now.

My DD is 18 years old with almost 220k miles on it. Just needs fuel and oil change every 5k miles. 

I was recently talking with JKB about how some parts' improvements are helping older cars do better. The comment above about leaking reminded me of looking at new gaskets for an old Alfa, and they were of modern construction, super-supple "rubber" with molded ridges and similar updates. Multi layer steel head gaskets are available for some surprising applications. With the addition of modern sealants, a lot of older vehicles with a quality rebuild should be fluid-tight in a way they never were from the factory. You will not find me installing rope seals "because period correct".

I agree with Ian's comment about balancing how much to modernize an old car, but I do think there's a real sweet spot there which provides something neither a stock old car nor any modern car can.

frenchyd said:

In reply to wspohn :

You are very right.  The MGB has the same unibody as everyone else. OK so Taxicab wanna-be’s  May have a roof panel   But I remind you that Formula 1 Indy cars and many other modern racecars lack a roof panel too.  

Besides there are several ways to get good handling. nobody complains that Morgan’s don’t handle well and they have a wood frame.  

 

Wait, you're trying to compare a carbon tub F1 car to a street car?

Did I accidentally drop acid this morning?

z31maniac said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to wspohn :

You are very right.  The MGB has the same unibody as everyone else. OK so Taxicab wanna-be’s  May have a roof panel   But I remind you that Formula 1 Indy cars and many other modern racecars lack a roof panel too.  

Besides there are several ways to get good handling. nobody complains that Morgan’s don’t handle well and they have a wood frame.  

 

Wait, you're trying to compare a carbon tub F1 car to a street car?

Did I accidentally drop acid this morning?

You do realize that the OP compared modern to a car introduced 56 years ago don’t you?  ( the MGB)  I went back 56 years before that ( 1906 )  and noted the cars available then.  Than add a couple of cars introduced about the same time as the MGB  { the XKE and the Stingray}  

since there are street cars made out of carbon fiber  I think that qualifies.  Now some want only a tin top car. While others of us prefer the convertible versions.  

So what’s your objection?  The race car versus street car comparison or the tin top versus convertible?  

frenchyd said:

z31maniac said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to wspohn :

You are very right.  The MGB has the same unibody as everyone else. OK so Taxicab wanna-be’s  May have a roof panel   But I remind you that Formula 1 Indy cars and many other modern racecars lack a roof panel too.  

Besides there are several ways to get good handling. nobody complains that Morgan’s don’t handle well and they have a wood frame.  

 

Wait, you're trying to compare a carbon tub F1 car to a street car?

Did I accidentally drop acid this morning?

You do realize that the OP compared modern to a car introduced 56 years ago don’t you?  ( the MGB)  I went back 56 years before that ( 1906 )  and noted the cars available then.  Than add a couple of cars introduced about the same time as the MGB  { the XKE and the Stingray}  

since there are street cars made out of carbon fiber  I think that qualifies.  Now some want only a tin top car. While others of us prefer the convertible versions.  

So what’s your objection?  The race car versus street car comparison or the tin top versus convertible?  

Not the race car, the F1 car. Might as well  be comparing it to the SpaceX Falcon.

In reply to mtn : or a 56 year old sports car?  

Keith Tanner said:

ManhattanM (fka NY535iManual) said:

I hadn't intended to start a discussion of the merits of old (more direct) versus new (safer, faster), I was just commenting on the *rate* of change. Like the old Virginia Slims ad says  "You've come a long way baby." 

Keith, part of the reason I resist driving a Miata newer than 2002 is that I'm pretty sure if I did I'd want one!

On a similar note - my mom's first car was a very early MGB. When I was in high school, that would have been an old car. 5-8 years ago, I was on a trip to Canada and I borrowed her 1990 Miata for a road trip. I realized partway through that trip that I didn't think of the Miata as an old car - but it was the same age as that MGB would have been when I was in high school. Now that was an eye-opener.

There was a lot of progress between that 1962 MGB and a 1990 Miata for sure - that was a busy 28 years. But there's almost been an invisible step change in the abilities of modern cars in the past half decade or so, it's like a bunch of work just gelled. You don't realize it until you start digging inside. In the 28 years since the 1990 Miata was introduced, the rate of change hasn't really slowed down that much. It's just not as obvious to the casual observer as carburetors and friction shocks.

I was thinking something similar the other day.  When I was in college in the mid '80's I had a '67 TR4A.  It felt really old even then, even though it was only 16 year old at the time.  That would be the equivalent of driving a Miata from 2002 today.  I don't consider them to be that old.  Of course the TR4 basic design goes back to the TR2 from the early '50's, so it was an old car in many ways, but there was a big shift in how cars were made during that time period.  It's probably the last car I owned where pieces would randomly fall off and you would have to do a nut and bolt weekly to monthly.  It also flexed quite a bit to where the doors would pop open depending on how hard you cornered.  And of course there were no seat belts.  Times have certainly changed.

To continue your analogy - a Miata from 2002 has a basic design that goes back to the late 80's.

I've always wondered how much of the LBC stigma comes from the existence of old, ratty versions. But after working on my Mini - they're just intended to be high maintenance. Set up the idler free play on a Mini transmission and you'll understand they really weren't engineered anything like a modern car.