new cars are faster, more efficient, have more mechanical grip, are more reliable

z31maniac wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote: As long as we're dumping on new cars... My biggest problem with them isn't the aesthetics, or the price, or the lack of "soul" (whatever the heck that means). It's the visibility. I don't drive a modern car very often- my daily driver is a 1980 Mercedes- but when I do (usually a rental, or someone else's car) I'm struck by just how little I can actually see. I'm used to being able to pick out the corners of whatever I'm driving pretty easily. I've driven a lot of older (pre 1980's) cars, and all but a few of them have been relatively "easy" cars to drive in that regard. But put me behind the wheel of something like a Honda Crosstour, and..holy crap, it's like I'm sitting in a hole. Everyone likes to blame smartpohones and texting for accidents, and I think that's true to an extent...now couple driver inattention with poor visibility, blind spots that could swallow a Fiat, and these hugely tall beltlines, small greenhouses, and bloated body lines, and it's no wonder I find myself honking at someone every other day for drifting over into my lane. Unfortunately, sitting in a hole is "safe", so I expect the trend of cars resembling tanks to continue. In 30 years, I expect we'll all be driving through little slits in the windshield, with cameras pointed everywhere and little monitors inside to show us what we're supposed to avoid crashing into.

I'm usually a "defend new cars" guy, but this is 100% dead on. New cars have terrible visibility because of the thick pillars and high sills. Some are worse than others, but it is a major issue, IMO. And it's part of the reason I drive a pickup. Things like blind-spot warnings and rearview cameras help, but you still can't beat a nice, open greenhouse.

Hates on new sports cars, drives a truck. Oh the lolz.

I... what???

The only "new" car I've owned that had a visibility problem was my 350Z.

Does the new Camaro have visibility problems? That seems to be the rumor, but I've never actually sat in one, so I'm not going to just parrot what others are saying.

z31maniac wrote: The only "new" car I've owned that had a visibility problem was my 350Z. Does the new Camaro have visibility problems? That seems to be the rumor, but I've never actually sat in one, so I'm not going to just parrot what others are saying.

Yes, pretty major ones. I've sat in several and ridden in one. C&D said this when it came out:

With its relatively forgiving suspension tuning, the Camaro is an easy car to drive fast—check the lane-change results—but it’s also a big car that drives big and feels even bigger, thanks in part to sightlines sliced thin by the styling. The faster you go, the more you want to see, but the Camaro’s views are restricted in almost every direction, particularly aft—“like the rear view from a nuclear submarine,” according to one crew member. That’s the price of the Camaro’s macho styling. It got the nod over the Mustang’s by-now familiar looks, and it turns heads, but claustrophobes need not apply.

To clarify, I'm not saying that I wouldn't buy a new car because of the visibility issues, far from it. Only that it's something I don't like about newer cars.

But anyway, what does that have to do with me driving a truck?

pilotbraden wrote:

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.

AGREED! That's why I've always maintained that any pilot, regardless of certification, should have to fly a tail dragger a few hours before every check ride. Five hours in a Cub will do more for your skills than 500 hours with your arms on the armrests, watching the autopilot fly.

Think how many people probably would have probably died in the Hudson if Capt. Sullenburger not known how to stick and rudder fly! That's exactly why I am so petrified of all the new self-drive features on many cars today.

So we're complaining about new cars in this thread. Why is the fact that "people have been complaining about new cars forever" relevant?

Doesn't mean we and those before us are wrong.

In reply to z31maniac:

The wife and I were looking at cars, and I stopped by the Chevy dealer to look at a new 1LS Camaro. She flat out told me that if I got one she wouldn't drive it because she couldn't see out of it. And my wife is 5'8" at least, it's not a height issue.

I think it's telling in what they're now adding into new cars to mimmick older cars.

"Sound Symposers". Really? Fake (augmented) audio to "enhance" the sounds of the engine.

"Track keys" which induce a cam lope, entirely by computer, because modern tuning and variable cam timing has made this a relic.

etc.

Old cars just made those noises. New tech is cool, but there's a certain character found in the traits of the older stuff. I thoroughly enjoy both, don't see this as bitching, but if the old traits were inherently worse or undesireable, they wouldn't be trying so hard to synthetically reintroduce these things through modern recreation via computers/processing.

ebonyandivory wrote: So we're complaining about new cars in this thread. Why is the fact that "people have been complaining about new cars forever" relevant? Doesn't mean we and those before us are wrong.

Or did the Beach Boys ruin music? No that was the Beatles. No that was One Direction, etc., etc.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: As long as we're dumping on new cars... My biggest problem with them isn't the aesthetics, or the price, or the lack of "soul" (whatever the heck that means). It's the visibility.

I agree here completely. If I could have seen out the back of my Malibu without having to almost completely turn around in the seat, I would have never ran into the back of that explorer

Ian F wrote: In reply to tuna55: And now it's rare to have a tire blow out.

You don't live in Michigan, I can tell...

z31maniac wrote: The only "new" car I've owned that had a visibility problem was my 350Z. Does the new Camaro have visibility problems? That seems to be the rumor, but I've never actually sat in one, so I'm not going to just parrot what others are saying.

I sat in one, but I was a passenger, so I couldn't tell compared to driving the car. It's not a rumor because all the car reviews about it from Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. say that low visibility is a weakness for it.

ebonyandivory wrote: So we're complaining about new cars in this thread. Why is the fact that "people have been complaining about new cars forever" relevant? Doesn't mean we and those before us are wrong.

Doesn't mean you are right, either.

Just that you (the general one- including the ones in 1909, complaining about the new horseless carriages) like to complain.

Visceral

Whenever I drive my '87 Corolla FX16 I get a smile on my face. It's slower and noisier than the Highlander but way more fun.

Ditto the tail dragger reference. Did all my primary training in J3 and L4 Cubs. Stick and rudder on snow ski's is too cool.

All you namby-pamby hipsters in your pillowy-tank 90s cars. Please. If you want real visibility and connection to the journey get a bicycle! You're all too soft.

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.

Off-Topic:

I had the pleasure of returning 5 Legacy DC-10's straight from the boneyard back to service (for ATA before they went out of business). No one liked working on the big pigs, but I loved it. Call it nostalgia, I guess.

After the first test flight of the first DC-10 I was the first to debrief the pilot.

"How did she fly?"

Pilot (sporting the "yeah, I know what you know smile") "Like a motherberkeleying Cadillac man".

On-Topic

I noticed that smile is the same smile I get from FB/FC RX-7 owners, people out cruising 60's iron, Garand guys at the range, etc.

xflowgolf wrote: I think it's telling in what they're now adding into new cars to mimmick older cars.

Well you know why they do this. The average person hates road noise, but the side effect of eliminating road noise is eliminating engine noise.

The road noise difference in my 89 Skyline and my 14 Mustang is huge. Also people complain, even on here, about WRX interiors and road noise when I had that car. People get what they ask for and all the side effects with it.

New tech is cool, but there's a certain character found in the traits of the older stuff.

Yes but it's just nostalgia. That's all it is. An old man told me the other week he hates how new mustangs sound and wouldn't buy one. He probably never even entertained accepting the difference.

You don't live in Michigan, I can tell...

Any different than Chicago? I grew up there and had a car for about 7 years there and never had a blowout.

trucke wrote: Whenever I drive my '87 Corolla FX16 I get a smile on my face. It's slower and noisier than the Highlander but way more fun.

Well let's be fair here. You are comparing it to a highlander

drummerfromdefleopard wrote: and yet I keep finding myself enjoying chassis for the early 90s more. Why is this?

They are cheaper.
You can see out of them.
User layout.
Weight.
Cost of consumables.
Superior geometry in some cases (Hondas).
etc.

?

z31maniac wrote: The only "new" car I've owned that had a visibility problem was my 350Z. Does the new Camaro have visibility problems? That seems to be the rumor, but I've never actually sat in one, so I'm not going to just parrot what others are saying.

Sports cars have always suffered a bit from poor visibility, so its no surprise they haven't gotten that much worse.

Drive a sedan or wagon from 20 years ago, then one from today. A, B, and C pillars have all grown huge, window heights have decreased, enormous headrests have appeared in positions for all passengers, etc. Pretty much every time I get a rental traveling, I'm reminded of how much easier it is to see out of a 20 year old E36 M3box.

drummerfromdefleopard wrote: and yet I keep finding myself enjoying chassis for the early 90s more. Why is this?

They are lighter and have none of the pointless legislated products on it to bloatify the car plus they can have modern all aluminum engines complete with VVT and it's before companies like Honda cost cutting the suspension. Period civics had double wishbone suspension. Sure there power is poor compared to today but the chassis was superior.

Like if you can get a SR20DET Silvia that really is a car that exemplifies the best of that era. Modern light aluminum block engine with variable timing and a good sized turbo capable of 300whp with a good suspension configuration at a weight 2700lbs. Sure we didn't get that in the US but that is just an example of that era of cars at its best.

If we got the Civic SiRs, real SR20 S13s, Escort Cosworths, Lancia Deltas, etc. there would be no question that the early 90s was the best era of technology before the safety nazis took hold. Even that being the case we still have many examples of greatness from that period. Only the American cars sucked, lol, it's funny how that has come full circle.

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 Plus older cars have the potential to "appreciate" rather than "depreciate"

Well like with music there are trends that just berkeley everything. Like there are some bands that I like the instrumentals in but they insist on death metal vocals and screaming like that. However because I like metal instrumentals that E36 M3 is unavoidable and I have to deal with it.

Same thing with the cars. I have a '14 Mustang GT. I like the power and the styling but I have to deal with the fact that it's like 3600-3800lbs.

I like the Fiesta ST but I have to deal with it looking like an egg and having a hilariously high belt line.

alfadriver wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: So we're complaining about new cars in this thread. Why is the fact that "people have been complaining about new cars forever" relevant? Doesn't mean we and those before us are wrong.

Doesn't mean you are right, either. Just that you (the general one- including the ones in 1909, complaining about the new horseless carriages) like to complain.

Preference, as far as I'm aware is neither right nor wrong. I prefer older technology.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure where the complaining is. Unless voicing opinions is what we're calling complaining these days

i dont know about reliable, the running gear in my wagon all still works 36 years later . I prefer older cars because i feel they have more of a personality. I cant stand the eps on my wifes saturn or her friends 12 fusion. I like the creaks and groans and feeling like part of the car.

fidelity101 wrote:

Ian F wrote: In reply to tuna55: And now it's rare to have a tire blow out.

You don't live in Michigan, I can tell...

No, but I've been there. PA and NJ roads are worse. Un-berking-believably worse... at least right now, post salt-season... My drive home is about a mile longer due to all the pot-hole dodging...

Regardless...

What I really want to know is how the OP drives a car with a manual transmission...