So you or your teenager wants a classic car...

rob_lewis said:

However, I've often wondered if automobile safety might be making drivers less aware.  For example, there's a commercial (I think it's for a Rogue) where they show the driver repeatedly backing into things. 

-Rob

Amen to that.  There's a commercial that drives me nuts, I think it's also for the Rogue.  There's a couple in the front seat talking about what they want for dinner.  They're looking at each other, instead of looking at the road and they nearly rear end a taco truck.  The ad is supposed to be funny...I guess???   Hysterical that they're not looking where their going because it was just a taco truck, not a child that they didn't see on the road.  

In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :

It's a Chevy add, regardless it still sends the same message "you can drive like crap, our car will save self absorbed idiots"

At my house classic cars are used for vintage racing. We drive moderns day to day because people are driving dumber than ever.

My wife likes obs broncos- she's rear ended and totaled her mdx in the past and drives closely. Honestly that's the only reason she doesn't have a bronco but I haven't told her. 

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

You have to drive like everyone else is out to kill you, new car or old. I have my head on a swivel when I'm driving my Miata, but that's a 23 year old car now, too. If I stumbled onto a 1971 Datsun 510 I'd gladly drive it, just carefully. If safety were the only criteria I'd being looking for used Kenworths.

You would do well on a motorcycle.

Other factors are, location and the kid. 
 

My kids grew up in a rural setting. Everyone had the rite of passage in the suburban and the f350, but after that it was Miata, 944, 1966 Mustang for my boys and an E36 for my daughter. If we were in an urban or even suburban setting, I may have thought twice. But i was happy to see them build and maintain their own cars.  
Two of the boys ended up falling as deeply in love as me with autos...Ed Higginbotham formerly of grm and James, 911/356 restoration guy with a blooming side hustle restoring water cooled Porsches. They both have surpassed me in garage skills. 
 

Also, if the kid is fairly responsible, it works. Not that mine didn't get in a few "issues", but by and large, they knew that 10/10's driving was for the track. 
 

It is hard to strike the balance of safety and some human's need for adventure, but i am satisfied with where we drew it. 

Whatever your new driver drives, I suggest you enroll them in a program such as Street Survival.

Doug Herbert's BRAKES program is the best teen driving school out there, IMO. But then I'm biased, because I did some instructing for them. 

The training, just like for competitive drivers, is the most important tool in the toolbox. The number of students I had that were given Jeep Wranglers as first cars was a bit horrifying. Those things are about the WORST thing to give a teenager. 

Everyone needs to find their own acceptable risk level.  I have no problem riding a motorcycle, nor did I fear my existence when I had my Austin Mini.  I towed to the track for several years with a 1965 F100 with manual disc brakes.  But, I also faded out of instructing because I didn't really feel comfortable going 150+ in cars without roll cages.  My acceptable terminal velocity is probably around 125-130 these days.  I just don't need to go faster than that.

I get the same speed thrills at 50 mph on a motorcycle that I had at 125 mph in my race car.  I'm certainly less safe on the bike, but I choose my roads and travel times to minimize the risk. And I wear all the safety gear one should.

But...the reason I can drive 125 or ride a bike is because I've done a lot of training. I am better prepared to deal with the unexpected than 99% of the people out there. It doesn't make me invincible but it certainly gives me an advantage. THIS is what parents should be investing in for their kids, not crossovers with 45 air bags that can perform stunts a Corvette from three decades ago could barely achieve. 

I saw this and realized a few things:

In NC, antique cars are over 30 years old. That means a 1991 is antique.
The definition of "Classic" car is a constantly moving target.
 

Appleseed said:

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

You have to drive like everyone else is out to kill you, new car or old. I have my head on a swivel when I'm driving my Miata, but that's a 23 year old car now, too. If I stumbled onto a 1971 Datsun 510 I'd gladly drive it, just carefully. If safety were the only criteria I'd being looking for used Kenworths.

You would do well on a motorcycle.

At almost 70 years old and never having driven a bike at all, I'll bet I wouldn't do very well.....

ddavidv said:

Doug Herbert's BRAKES program is the best teen driving school out there, IMO. But then I'm biased, because I did some instructing for them. 

The training, just like for competitive drivers, is the most important tool in the toolbox. The number of students I had that were given Jeep Wranglers as first cars was a bit horrifying. Those things are about the WORST thing to give a teenager. 

Everyone needs to find their own acceptable risk level.  I have no problem riding a motorcycle, nor did I fear my existence when I had my Austin Mini.  I towed to the track for several years with a 1965 F100 with manual disc brakes.  But, I also faded out of instructing because I didn't really feel comfortable going 150+ in cars without roll cages.  My acceptable terminal velocity is probably around 125-130 these days.  I just don't need to go faster than that.

I get the same speed thrills at 50 mph on a motorcycle that I had at 125 mph in my race car.  I'm certainly less safe on the bike, but I choose my roads and travel times to minimize the risk. And I wear all the safety gear one should.

But...the reason I can drive 125 or ride a bike is because I've done a lot of training. I am better prepared to deal with the unexpected than 99% of the people out there. It doesn't make me invincible but it certainly gives me an advantage. THIS is what parents should be investing in for their kids, not crossovers with 45 air bags that can perform stunts a Corvette from three decades ago could barely achieve. 

My kids did street survival, I have not heard of this program.  I have come to the point where I don't want my kids in classic cars, or at least not as daily drivers.  My kids drove an NA miata and I foolishly didn't realize how much my son would fall in love with  it.  We upgraded to an NB with a roll bar, but he is now a subaru kid so we breath a bit easier.

I never thought I'd feel like I do, even after treating head injured and MVA's for years.  I sold my motorcycles, but that's another story.  Like someone else said, we all have our comfort levels.  I was t-boned in my focus svt.  Had it been on my side, I can't imagine how much more I would have been injured.  Freaked me out about my kids in the miata.    

If I ever get another classic, I am going to install real seat belts before it gets driven.  My son drives a subaru that is one year older than him, maybe that is considered a classic, but at least it has airbags and decent seat belts.  Having kids changes everything,

My current ride is a Kia Sorento, I don't know what year. Biggest nanny-mobile I have ever driven and it is becoming one of my least favorite rentals due to that fact.

Electric power steering which is kindof neat since I never driven with it, but the car "takes control" at really odd times. Some of the roads are pretty tight here lane-wise and the damn thing constantly thinks I am drifting into the other lane and steers itself.

It also beeps and tones at me if I am parking in the hotel parking lot next to someone. Small parking spots out here too.

Backing up on some of the drive entrances will also set off a tone because the angle to the street is too much for it.

I much prefer a more analog car.

It's funny, what most of us consider "Classic" (myself included) and what many kids consider "Classic" might be starkly different. 

Let's take my 19 year old gearhead nephew. Last year, he set on a quest to buy a "Classic".  He wanted something he could buy, tinker on, and cruise in reliably and safely. I started sending him a menagerie of interesting old vehicles, some of which he looked at and passed on for various reasons. After months and months of this, he called me and told me he bought something. His "Classic":



A 1995 Mercedes 300D. I mean, I remember when W124's were new or slightly used. I started driving myself around in 1998, so these were basically new cars the rich people in town drove around. But guess what? This was built 27 years ago! The last of its breed, and the first with the OM606 diesel mill. It's older than him (he was born in 2002) and when driving it today, it really feels like something from a bygone era, but modern enough to be safe. And it's old enough that parts are relatively cheap and the buy-in was very affordable. 

And you know what? Yup, it's a "Classic".

Coincidentally to this discussion, the latest Jay Leno's Garage video features a young man who got an MGA when he was 15.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR1reX5-6X8

preach (dudeist priest) said:

My current ride is a Kia Sorento, I don't know what year. Biggest nanny-mobile I have ever driven and it is becoming one of my least favorite rentals due to that fact.

Electric power steering which is kindof neat since I never driven with it, but the car "takes control" at really odd times. Some of the roads are pretty tight here lane-wise and the damn thing constantly thinks I am drifting into the other lane and steers itself.

It also beeps and tones at me if I am parking in the hotel parking lot next to someone. Small parking spots out here too.

Backing up on some of the drive entrances will also set off a tone because the angle to the street is too much for it.

I much prefer a more analog car.

You described my last company car, a Ford Fusion. Good grief, I cursed that thing daily for trying to make decisions for me and constantly scolding me for doing what I do in every other car without drama. Lane departure...ugh. And the pre-crash radar for the front thinks I'm going to die every time someone turns off into a driveway no matter how slow I'm traveling behind them.

One of the many reasons I have no interest at all in new cars. 

In reply to ddavidv :

I'm such a mixed bag on this one.  Yeah, I 100% get it and agree that the nannies can be intrusive.  I think some are better than others.  My wife used to have a Sonata Hybrid with the full suite of safety nannies.  Lane departure sucked, partly because it sometimes struggled to read a "lane".  Thankfully that could be...and was...turned off.  I honestly didn't find the rest of them all that intrusive.  Radar based cruise control is kinda nice, TBH.  

Also, doing what you and I do for a living I have somewhat mixed feelings there too.  Unquestionably people should actually know how to drive, pay attention to the road and not rely on the nannies.  It can also lead to lazy driving due to assuming the electronics will handle it (see Tesla claims as an extreme example).  Yet the reality is that we will never get the masses to be as attentive drivers as most people who populate this board.  Given that, I'd rather have them driving a car that has the ability to stop itself than have them slam into the car in front of them because they were trying to find their vape which fell on the floor.  When ABS, traction control and airbags were first becoming more common, they were sometimes seen as safety nannies.  I have no objection to any of those and in fact very much prefer a car with them. 

In reply to thedoc :

Back in 89 when I graduated HS I was looking for my first car.  I found a 1964 Triumph Spitfire for sale in Reno, about 40 miles away, and to my surprise my parents did not try to talk me out of getting it.  It did have seat belts, at some point in its life someone put Nissan belts in it, not that I think they would do much in a crash.  Interestingly, after we brought it home my dad, born in1946, told me he never owned a car older than he was. 

I'm the biggest hypocrite on this topic..

My 18 year old is in drivers training for the next several weeks.. We will only let her drive our late model cars; air bags, crumple zones, traction control, etc.. She's new and needs every advantage should something go wrong, her fault or not. 

For myself, I ride a street bike, and I also love and drive vintage cars.. I'm currently in a MC-powered Berkeley that will crack like the fiberglass egg that it is if ever it's hit.  I know it is not safe; virtually none of the vintage cars I've ever owned and driven could be called safe, and yet I'm drawn to them despite their shortcomings.  For my part, I drive very, very defensively, and on some level just hope that karma will let me keep enjoying these classic vehicles.

--ccrunner

Keith Tanner said:

The old vs new crash test that really impressed me was the Sentra vs Versa. With the Impalas, we expect a big change in safety and there was always the question of the effects of age on the classic.

But this is a new old Mexican market Sentra vs a new new Versa.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/85OysZ_4lp0?rel=0

 

Ha! I'd forgotten about this video. It wasn't the leaking gas tank, the fender I would occasionally re-spray paint white when it got too dirty, wasn't the dangling turn signal, wasn't the fact that after a few fender benders someone thought I would be a good candidate for a false accusation of a hit and run... it was seeing THIS VIDEO that was the reason I gave away my '94! Ha!

ccrunner said:

I'm the biggest hypocrite on this topic..

My 18 year old is in drivers training for the next several weeks.. We will only let her drive our late model cars; air bags, crumple zones, traction control, etc.. She's new and needs every advantage should something go wrong, her fault or not. 

For myself, I ride a street bike, and I also love and drive vintage cars.. I'm currently in a MC-powered Berkeley that will crack like the fiberglass egg that it is if ever it's hit.  I know it is not safe; virtually none of the vintage cars I've ever owned and driven could be called safe, and yet I'm drawn to them despite their shortcomings.  For my part, I drive very, very defensively, and on some level just hope that karma will let me keep enjoying these classic vehicles.

--ccrunner

 

I don't think you're a hypocrite at all. Logical in fact.  ( that way I avoid calling myself a hypocrite)  

   There is a world of difference between a novice driver  driving  someone's vintage car. And an informed adult. Who's carefully restored a vintage car with his own hands  then carefully drives it to and from club events.  
     
     

This was my first car, as a teen in the mid-2000's. I don't know what my dad was thinking putting me in such an old, V8-powered, tail-happy, 4-wheel-drum brake'd death trap. Sure, working on it for 2 years until I got my license instilled a great sense of ownership and responsibility, compared to just getting handed a set of keys. Yes, it was costly to fill up with gas on a grocery store wage, which limited how much and how far I drove it. But I was still a teenage boy, and still did dumb E36 M3 with it. Dumb enough stuff that I probably wouldn't let my future kid drive something like this.

In reply to maschinenbau :

A real good friend of mine drove a 72 as his first car in the mid 2000s, and I had an LT1 Z28. We did many dumb things in them, but driving stuff like that made us pay way more attention than some of our classmates in nanny ridden appliances.

The thing about the old Impala video is you can see rust from (probably) the frame just pouring down at the impact. No doubt that can isn't as age as todays, but a rusty frame is going to make a difference. 

DrBoost said:

The thing about the old Impala video is you can see rust from (probably) the frame just pouring down at the impact. No doubt that can isn't as age as todays, but a rusty frame is going to make a difference. 

I see what you're talking about. I guess there have been other comments, the IIHS says this: 

David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia. He explained that when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did.

“We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.

They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.

The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.

Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said.

It would be interesting to see a cut section of the frame to see what kind of shape it was in post crash, but I don't have a hard time believing that an X-frame car offers poor crash protection. 

maschinenbau said:

Yes, it was costly to fill up with gas on a grocery store wage, which limited how much and how far I drove it. 

I think soon parents will figure out getting their kid a well used EV will accomplish that.  A worn battery will prevent impromptu road trips and the teen won't have to worry about gas money.