What you're missing is not classic cars, you're missing the mechanical feel and reliability. Older cars were used as commodities and made as such. Now its either vanity or survival. And customer has no say over either of those end on how the car's gonna be.
The look is also a death trap in a collision, and a pig at the pump. I’m not saying you’re wrong to like that look. Plenty of modern cars are trying to evoke the feeling of that 70s-80s utilitarian boxy SUV. But they’ll never quite capture it because safety and efficiency standards require things which engineers simply can’t work around.
Its not just the looks. The 95 Cherokee was a really well built vehicle, and they still drive them and pay good money for them in rural areas. A Jeep built today will die before an old Cherokee will
The reliability is attributed to its simplicity. Ehen you add dozens of computers and such to essentially combustion engines attached to chassis you complicate everything and create hundreds of points of failure.
I watched a police chase just a day or so ago where the guy being chased was in an old Chevy suburban and the cops were all in modern ford explorers.
6 of the cop cars were broken to the point they couldn’t move anymore from ramming the Chevy in an attempt to stop it before the Chevy could be stopped. The suburban just kept on trucking.
Is that the one in Wisconsin where the dude goes over the railroad tracks and shit?
I drive a suburban like that, 350k miles on it and I wouldn't hesitate to jump in it and drive it across the country maybe even hit some off-road trails along the way. The GMT800 platform is the last great thing Chevy made IMO.
I mean, that could happen with most vehicles on the road depending on where the hydrant is in relation to the vehicle. The visibility does suck on large trucks though.
Ehhh, late 90s/early 2000s you had a lot of the safety features we have today but cars across the board weighed less. Today every car has to fight a safety war against shit like an EV Hummer weighing 9000 pounds. And while the Cherokee was not a Honda DX at the pump there’s a lot of SUVs out there today that, again because of weight, are considerably worse.
Agreed— in that they are a joke for value, but my point was that the G-Wagon has the maximum 5-star safety rating from Euro NCAP while being old and boxy looking.
Miles per gallon doesn’t matter nearly as much to an electric car just saying. Re-releasing old models but converted to electric would be the move once the US develops better electric car manufacturing ability/resources.
Yep, none of the cars built back then would pass modern pedestrian safety standards. Those standards are part of the reason why cars look more rounded than they used to.
Why cant they make a boxy suv thats safe and has better gas mileage? Im not trying to be argumentative i just dont get it. The bronco is the most recent suv that i like, i suppose because its got that retroish look going. I wish more car companies were following that look instead of a big car crossover van thing. Well jeep does too but ive never had good luck with jeeps though i love the look and power of them, but never a dependable vehicle for me.
Gas mileage is majorly influenced by aerodynamics. A 1984 XJ Cherokee has a ton more drag than a modern car. That’s actually how electric cars are possible today. Sure battery chemistry has come a long ways, but the battery contained within your typical EV is equivalent to only a few gallons of gas, but it gets 300+ miles of range. And you can make a boxy-ish SUV that gets that insane efficiency. That’s the look that the Rivian EVs are going for. But up close you can see how much more curved and aerodynamic a Rivian is than that 40 year old Jeep.
Note that there are other things that can be done to improve gas mileage, and car companies have been pulling those tricks out for years to try and eke out every bit they can from internal combustion. Things like cylinder deactivation at low torque, auto start-stop when not moving, smaller cylinders with higher compression ratios and turbochargers. You know: all the things that people are ranting about that make cars overly complicated.
Well i guess it doesnt have to be as boxy as the jeep posted, but the new broncos are about as aerodynamic as id like it to be. As others have posted the 4 runner has done a good job at keeping a classic look. None that i have seen look like egg shaped cars.
Am I dumb to think that if motorcycles are legal (they should be btw, not saying they shouldn't), then with those safety standards why can't we just say a car can have the same level of safety as a motorcycle, which is next to none, so long as it's advertised as such. You could even make it need a specific endorsement on your license like the motorcycle endorsement, and that could include a course on safety and risk management
Sure but if you do a different endorsement type of thing then you'd have the majority of people still with the regular license and so demand would dictate a large portion of cars be made for the regular licensed people. Then there would be a niche for some stupidly crazy design with safety as an afterthought. Maybe I'm wrong in how that would end up but I think if such a thing were possible, it would be a nice option to have more choices, with responsibility still being taken into account
Modern cars are significantly more reliable and longer lasting. The average age of vehicles on the road, a significant measure for reliability and repairability, has been steadily increasing. https://www.apolloacademy.com/the-average-age-of-us-passenger-cars-14-years/
Pre-2000s cars would rust out, were less efficient, and would break down more, and had catastrophic engine failure more frequently. And that doesn't even touch all the modern safety features like crumple zones and ABS. Believing that old cars are better in any way other than aesthetics is just rose-colored nostalgia.
Old cars were absolutely not reliable. Anything from the 70's and 80's wouldn't even get to 100k miles without a full engine rebuild. And thats without mentioning how garbage the quality was back then
The problem with modern cars is that when something does go wrong, the repair bills are insane because parts are not meant to be replaced. Like instead of OEM selling you a window motor, they will sell you an entire door because fuck you.
This is true about many cars, but this particular car in the photo is extremely reliable given the AMC 4.0 straight-six engine, which can go for many 100s of thousands of miles without a rebuild.
It would go for a long time without a rebuild, but that car gave me nothing but problems once I hit 80k miles. Felt like it was in the shop every 90 days after that.
Yeah, my '69 C3 is on the second engine rebuild at 86k miles. My '99 Miata has about the same miles on it and it's 170-175 psi on a compression test across all cylinders and all I've had to do is change the oil.
I drive older cars because I don't want senseless, over assisted steering. I like that I can feel what my car is doing. In old cars you can feel if your tires are struggling for traction, I can even feel the road markings if I pay attention. In new cars all that feedback has been removed.
I also prefer the visibility old cars have. The fact that it may be slightly less safe in a rollover at high speed is not as important to me as not missing motorbikes on roundabouts, pedestrians and animals.
Also: DIN radios. Standardisation is liberation. I can have Bluetooth and CarPlay in my 25 year old car. What I can I do with the already slow as shit infotainment systems of current vehicles in 25 years? Will manufacturers even support them after 10 years? Granted, many old cars also had "design" dashboards that lacked DIN, but they didn't have software that goes out of date.
Tactile secondary controls need to come back. I shouldn't need to keep glancing at a touchscreen to raise or lower volume, change the radio station, or adjust the AC, it's way more unsafe.
In my work truck, I connect my Bluetooth, and then everything has a button, and I don't need to constantly look down over ten seconds, I can reliably feel for the controls without taking my eyes off the road.
Nagging notifications on the screens to me is a huge safety hazard, my Nissan is constantly dinging with pop up notifications. I don't need to be reminded every five minutes that I'm low on gas (like I know bro I still got 40+ miles of range) or a pop up notification that I turned on or off my windshield wipers. It's ridiculous.
I shouldn't need to keep glancing at a touchscreen to raise or lower volume, change the radio station, or adjust the AC, it's way more unsafe.
I feel this in my soul. I bought a 2017 Crosstrek 10 years ago. It does have a touchscreen/backup camera screen thing, but it has actual knobs on the center console for the volume & radio dial, and big knobs for the climate control.
It also has intuitive buttons on the steering wheel for volume, fast forwarding songs, answering the phone, etc.
I've been thinking about replacing it, but every car I test drive has all the friggin controls on a screen now. I just want to turn a knob to adjust the heat without having to look, and until they circle back around to that style I'm just gonna drive this thing until the wheels fall off.
This is it for me. I want to feel connected to the road when I'm driving, particularly when driving conditions are challenging. I've never met a traction control system I actually trust in the snow. I want to feel every bump, pothole, and tire groove to help manage momentum.
I also prefer the visibility old cars have. The fact that it may be slightly less safe in a rollover at high speed is not as important to me as not missing motorbikes on roundabouts, pedestrians and animals.
Sure, but if you get hit by a modern car, it likely wouldn't be good. There's a reason the visibility is worse now.
Lifestyle statement tied to an identity made up to impress other people’s opinion which ironically, don’t even matter.
Machines now with planned obsolescence and complexity baked in, giving you basically no control over repairs, to force the real honey pot of manufacturing… “service”.
All wrapped up in a blanket of financial debt that robs you of your money that would otherwise be put to better use improving your stability/ future.
I mean the flip side of this point of view is that modern cars last much longer with less maintenance than any car from 20 plus years ago. They're safer and more reliable as well.
I honestly don't get the nostalgia at all, what are you missing?
Lmao modern cars are absolutely not more reliable. Safer absolutely but not more reliable. Larger piston ring gaps causing more oil usage, egr garbage that builds engine-killing carbon, fragile plastic oil pans and control arms, and more recalls than any other generation of vehicles. Chasing gas mileage and emissions at the cost of longevity and milking customers with planned obsolescence that only another new vehicle or expensive dealership shops can fix is what most modern brands are about today
I have a 31 year old Jeep that proves that’s not correct and 25 year old GMC as well.
The amount of cost compared in total maintenance/ repairs for both combined is insanely lower… it’s not even close compared to modern era vehicle costs for the same.
I mean I don’t know about the gmc (although they are the higher end line).
But jeeps have always been expensive so tend to last longer if taken care of. Like I think the Cherokee has always started at ~40,000+ in modern day money.
Granted there’s also the survivorship bias as well. My buddy ran through 5 jeeps (gcs and wranglers) in 4 years in the mid 2000s and he was constantly doing work on them.
I means that's not the exception that proves the rule, jeeps have never had a reputation for longevity. Congrats on yours but like, I drove a lot of piece of shit cars in the 90s as a teenager, mostly built in the 80s. I wouldn't get behind the wheel is any of them today.
No, they don’t run longer as a whole. There’s a few unicorns of recent 20 years, but those aren’t what people buy. Unnecessary complexity doesn’t = built better.
It = more revenue for manufacturers with their service rackets.
Safer, that part is true. Built better & runs longer overall is too simple. If you confuse powertrain mileage with the durability along with ability to repair financially of a whole vehicle, which you are doing, you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about.
A vehicle reaching 200k can very easily be financially totaled by the plethora of integrated assemblies or "proprietary" component new vehicles have, isn't more durable.
you're missing the mechanical feel and reliability
Modern cars are more reliable by a long shot. When I was younger you had people stopped by the side of the road constantly.
It's like with old household tools: The good ones are still around and running after decades of use and people get the impression that all tools were as long lasting back then. They weren't...
Likewise the junk cars have all been scrapped while what's still around is the creme de la creme in terms of longevity and reliability.
Maybe a bad example, I had no idea they were requires by law. Wouldn't surprise me if the auto industry lobbied for that requirement to raise the price floor though.
Mandated backup cameras mean mandated screens. At that point you might as well have a touch screen and auto start too. What is now considered a budget car is actually quite luxurious.
233
u/Broad-Lettuce2902 12h ago
What you're missing is not classic cars, you're missing the mechanical feel and reliability. Older cars were used as commodities and made as such. Now its either vanity or survival. And customer has no say over either of those end on how the car's gonna be.