>modern cars are better than old cars
do you agree with him?
>>15157766
In the sense they're more comfortable, fuel efficient while way more powerful, yes.
In terms of everything else no.
>>15157766
Of course they are. Only a delusional dimwit would think an older car is actually better than a newer car.
Yes, you can argue >muh visibility, but when it concerns the rest, modern carsare generally way better.
>>15157766
no
too much tech n shit
and pigfat
For example i'd rather a r34 than r35
>>15157805
t. 15 y.o
>>15157766
If both James May and Tiff Needell think old cars are rubbish, then I am inclined to agree.
>>15157810
you wish pedogay
>>15157805
r35 is faster, safer, more comfortable, etc etc than r34, you have to separate culture and technological advancements.
Generally, I guess so. Only real gripes I have with modern cars is that some of them are heavier than they should be, and manual transmissions going away.
All the technology making them harder to work on is shitty, but not insurmountable, and terrible modern "infotainment systems" are easily replaced most of the time.
>>15157766
The only thing modern cars don't have is good styling, and mechanical simplicity to an extent
>>15157810
Funny coming from you considering I've never seen anything from you that wasn't just blatant shitposting.
>>15157766
I will never drive a car with a touchscreen. If the time ever comes where everyone 10-20 year old car has a screen, then I will rip it out upon purchasing the vehicle. At least it will be weight reduction.
well I mean you could still consider 90s cars to be modern
>>15157766
In regards to luxury options, reliability and fuel efficiency I agree. As far as styling, simplicity and ease or maintenance and restoring, I disagree.
Overall, I think modern cars are the best daily drivers and old cars are the best hobbyist vehicles.
Certainly not modern european cars, post 2000 bmw, mercedes, audi, vw, etc are all garbage
Really, it depends on the era.
Cars from the 60s and before are slow, less reliable, handle worse, and were made from inferior tech in general. Carbureted engines, drum brakes, come to mind.
Cars started to get better in the 70s through the 90s. Getting smaller, better tech in them, more fuel efficient, and more powerful.
Now we're past the gas crisis, and everyone has fat cars. But now they're not attractive and fat. They're crossovers. What happened to a small, light car that has good fuel economy? Or that can serve as a good hooning platform?
In twelve years, I don't think anyone's going to be hooning with crossovers. There'll be people interested in them for the nostalgic value, as classic car enthusiasts go, but that'll be all.
If modern cars kept in the direction of the 90s and the gas crisis was never resolved, we'd have much more use of small displacement, turbocharged engines for fuel economy. With light weight and today's tech, they'd genuinely be great cars and hooning platforms.
The hybrid cars were on to something. But now there isn't an incentive, other than tax breaks, to get a hybrid. And if you look at a crossover, it's not better than a regular sedan.
I agree that modern cars are better, technologically. But not in the direction they've went. I also hate the new styles of cars.
>>15157878
crossovers are appliances, not everyone drove chargers and 300SL's in the 60's, people drove bland cars that everyone has forgotten about, because they were appliances in the 60's too
we have a shitton of exciting cars made nowadays, they will be kept by the people who like cars, just like we have classic muscle cars
Drove a 1966 Mustang with the 289 and a 4 speed...the experience ruined my dream of owning one someday. I like power steering too much. I know it can be added, but if I were to buy one it would be low mileage and all original with documentation, so that's a non-starter.
>>15157878
Just get a 911, same basic idea since 1963, all the modern engineering one could need.
>>15157944
Ummm, it's not like they don't come with power steering. You just to have to find one that has it already. Seems most do.
Modern cars are not as delicate or finicky. But I personally feel that 70s muscle cars like my challenger will always be better than the modern day equivalent.
Same can be said for Japanese 90s cars. The R32 the fc and fd rx7 and the smaller and meme n/a miata are same.
There something special about those cars that just can't be captured now.
>expecting an unbiased answer from /o/
Everyone here has a massive case of sour grapes
>>15158068
t. summerfag
>>15157995
I drove a 1966, which had it as an option, but I've always wanted the 1964.5 model, unfortunately pretty rare to find one on the build sheet...not to mention it's a pretty terrible Eaton unit.
In the sense that they are technically better and much more capable, then yes. Other than that, many lost their way when it comes to design and driving feel. Also the whole lolwutarewindows thing.
>>15158027
>>15158027
This. Muscle cars are best cars.
>>15157830
Easy to replace so long as the infotainment system isn't locked to the car's vin and you don't get jewed by the dealer tech to unlock it
>>15157766
Yes, just look at the ND Miata
>>15157766
>faster
>more powerful
>more reliable
>more comfortable
>more efficient
>more user friendly
>safer
how is this even a fucking question?
there isn't a single one of you fucks that will tell me a nokia phone from 2001 is better than an lg g5 because it is simpler. literally the only reason why you idiots say you like old stuff is better is because you all work at some shit ass job and won't be able to afford anything new in your lifetime, and because you can change your own oil without breaking the car. watch, in 10 years, you'll all be circle jerking over e46s because they'll be within your budget. goddamn you fucks are autistic
>>15158420
>that's a Hyundai
What a time to be alive
It depends on the time period you consider modern, and what criteria you're evaluating.
It would be cool if modern industrial processes were applied to make super reliable old-tech cars for cheap.
>>15158420
What about boomers paying a million bucks for some 1930's Bugatti? Is that because they're poor too?
>>15157774
>In terms of everything else no.
Cars today are much safer than old cars.
>>15158435
>let's discuss the obvious exception to the rule!!!
you're just proving me right
>>15158420
2/10 b8
Step it up senpai
>>15158420
>implying any modern watch is better than my 50s Delma, however poorly it keeps time
>>15157944
Out of all the things to complain about, you complain about power steering
>>15158452
So it's better because it's worse?
Wew lad
>>15158420
>faster
>more powerful
Late 60s cars almost all came with big V8s and were faster and more powerful than the average car today. Vintage hemis and big blocks still pull good numbers. It isn't hard to modify old cast engines to give a better output as well. My 1969 383ci stroker is much stronger than my 2008 5.3.
>more reliable
But when something goes wrong, it's much harder to fix / replace.
>more comfortable
I find big windows, bench seats and open interiors comfortable. Newer vehicles are too croweded and full of plastic and screens.
>more efficient
True.
>more user friendly
But less fun. That's like choosing an automatic to a manual. Yes, it's easier but it's boring.
>safer
True.
>>15157805
eww no, r32. r34 is fucking ugly as shit.
>>15158483
>My 1969 383ci
Whatcha drive musclebro? Camaro? Nova?
>>15158483
Old cars were rated differently, and manufacturers used to test the engines alone with no accessories so the numbers were inflated as fuck
>>15158502
>the numbers were inflated as fuck
Are you kidding? The car companies used to UNDERSTATE the engine output so they could sell the cars without insurance and shit.
http://gearheads.org/the-true-hp-of-the-10-most-powerful-classic-era-muscle-cars/
>>15158506
Good joke
>>15158518
:^)
>>15158483
My Outback XT would be able to keep up with a stock 289 or 302 Mustang. Old V8s are overrated as fuck without significant modifications.
>>15158506
>The car companies used to UNDERSTATE the engine output
>>15158536
>There have been two reasons given for the motivation of the factory to under-report the horsepower of their muscle cars: insurance and NHRA classifications.
>Certainly insurers were getting nervous when they started to see cars being introduced, starting with the Pontiac Tempest GTO, with high horsepower in a relatively small car. And as all insurance is based on risk, the insurance companies apportioned higher premiums on these big horsepower cars. To what degree the insurance companies saw through this rouse is unknown. The under-rating rumors were all over the car magazines at the time, and insurance companies aren’t dumb, so in the end it may not have made much difference.
>The other reason is much more tangible. The NHRA placed new cars into Stock categories based on weight and stated horsepower. And in the 1960s, drag racing was as important to car sales as NASCAR is today. At that time, Indy was a one-time a year event, ther other events not receiving much coverage, and NASCAR was a regional series in the Southeastern US. Drag racing was where it was at – just a quick survey of music (409, Little Deuce Coupe, Little Old Lady from Pasadena, etc.) and TV shows – Grandpa Munster had a dragster and a drag-style custom car even appeared on Star Trek. As just a wild guess, it was probably 75% NHRA, 25% insurance as motivation for under-rating an engine.
>So did the carmakers just lie? Not, probably not. One of the easiest ways to underrate an engine is to specific a maximum RPM below peak horsepower. As you’ll see in the analysis below, several of the most powerful engines had horsepower ratings published at an engine speed below maximum.
:^)))))))))))
>>15157766
well modern cars are worthless like a china toaster or washing machine
you just throw them away and get a new one
if something breaks none of its worth replacing
and repair is out of the question
>more comfortable
nope
its all penny pinching bullshit
what's called luxury now is a joke
>>15157844
Have fun with your ecu no longer working
>>15157832
I think plenty of modern cars look good. More stylized than years past, for sure, but there are definitely still good looking cars today.
>>15157805
>Eeeewww technology
>then uses a car that uses technology as an example
Come the fuck on. Even Clarkson slammed the R34 for this reason in his old ass "best 100 cars ever built" but to be far the R34 was in the top 10.
>>15158541
i can tell you've never heard of the difference between gross horsepower and net horsepower
>>15158570
>he lost the argument so he's resorting to insults
Luxury car interior designs have really gone awry in the past 15-20 years. It feels like they're approaching a singularity with yacht interiors. 80's to mid-90's really nailed it and they've been going downhill ever since. Exteriors have fared a little better, but are still a step down as well.
>>15158549
>it's not nice because I personally can't repair it on the blocks in front of my trailer
Okay Cletus. I'm sorry that your car hobby is leaving you behind technologically, but there really are people to whom circuits aren't wizardry.
>>15158576
I'm calling you ignorant, not an idiot. You're handling the idiot part all on your own.
>>15157766
>modern cars are better than old cars
In almost every way that is measurable. Only boomers think otherwise
>I used to have one of these, used to go like shit off a shanghai!
Well grandpa, you're half right.
Old cars look rad. That's why they're cool. But better?
Not in any tangible aspect.
>>15158601
>he reaffirms his own commitment to delusion
C M T S U
>>15158541
>pure unsourced speculation
Nice try thought.
>>15158620
>he's deep in denial over being BTFO by knowledge
: ^ )
He can afford new cars, unlike some people here so yeah I agree.
>>15158027
>Modern cars are not as delicate or finicky
hold up nikka
>>15158637
>FEA makes cars suck
this is an autism image, isn't it?
>>15158600
better hope your in warranty and credit fuc boi
>>15157766
Yes, newer cars are for the most part nicer. There are a few old gems, but not many cars are made of stainless steel and not every previous owner treated the car as their baby, so there's a lot of busted & rusted out cars out there. Newer cars are a safer buy, just less variables in the equation.
If you can afford them, yes.
Btw, James got a good taste for cars.
>>15158648
take away till it breaks
then add one back
>>15157766
Yes, the GPS and other tracking devices like Onstar and Lojack Programs are a surveillance on privacy. "I like being tracked, it make me feels safe. For I would rather...."
>>15158655
That is a good way to buy cars if you're rich enough to responsibly buy a luxury car, yes. There's no such thing as a cheap one, and you either pay in out of warranty repairs and parts or you pay the sticker price at a dealer. That doesn't make them bad cars. It's not as if it's cheap to maintain a 1975 Porsche either even though it's simpler than a modern car.
>>15157774
New cars aren't as comfortable as old cars
Old landbarges are like sitting on a couch floating down the road
>>15158559
There isn't much style diversity, but there are definitely great looking modern cars.
je ne sais quoi
>>15158736
I'm sorry you can't afford a present-day LS. I really am.
anyone who says old cars are better have never been in a wreck.
and anyone who claims their 70-80's metal box is safer cause it doesn't dent and "they don't build them like they used to" is a fucking idiot
living is #1
>>15158483
>>hurr hurr my '69 big block V8 makes better power than an new 1.3l econobox engine
then there's this idiot
compare like with like and a modern sports car is better in every objective category except seating 3 in the first row
>>15157766
I prefer older cars because less electronic gadgets to break and the engines are easier to work on.
>>15158876
Tell that to the guy who pulled out in front of me in my 68 Dodge W300.
His new f150 was a total loss. He had a concussion, two cracked ribs and a broken arm.
I only had a lap belt and was able to drive my truck home with a few bruises.
>>15157766
Yes.
I know I'm late but I'll say it anyway
New cars are objectively better
Old cars are subjectively better
>>15157766
Yes, the new generation is almost always better than the old generation.
Visualy? Meh, sometimes i wish manufactures would stick to their older designs more. But that is why you have replica companies!
Imagine a mustang 1954 body kit, with the new 250 hp 4 cylinder engine from the focus, custom exhaust so it does sound like utter shit, and updated mechanics.
> Mustang 1964
> everything new except body
>>15160261
>side impact
You can't compare your damage to his.
>>15160290
He pulled across my lane toward the direction I was coming from. I hit him in the right front/fender. It was almost head on
>>15160344
Story doesn't add up. Impact on passenger fender from an old heap and the F-150 wasn't able to dissipate the energy before it reached the driver despite your admission to his truck being a total loss.
doubt.jpg
This is coming from someone in an old heap 1st gen Cummins too.
thats a fact tho
anyone who disagrees is in denial
I daily a 370z, but I have a 1965 falcon and used to have a 1969 fairlane along with a bunch of 80s shitboxes.
A new car is better in virtually every factual aspect, but when it comes down to styling and "muh feels" then it's opinion.
I'll probably always own some classic car
>>15157766
Better how? Please elaborate.
>faster
>more powerful
Not really, a shit load heavier you mean.
>more reliable
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA good one mate
>more comfortable
nope
>more efficient.
Says the manufacturers, and if they say so, it's true!
>more user friendly
you mean that overlay of useless gimmicks, driving aids, touchscreen, dingdongchlingdong, auto park, no oil stick, no gearbox stick, etc...
>safer
more like allowing retards to pull more stupid shit and get away with it.
>>15160561
someone has never been in a modern car or is in some heavy denial
>>15158439
Not the guy.
But they don't or lack the character they all once had.
>>15160576
old cars didnt have character when they were new either
old shitboxes dont really have character either theyre just worn out
>>15158439
>caring about safety
>when you decide to sit inside a metal deathtrap with an engine that works by making gasoline explode to propel you forward at high speeds
automobiles by design are not safe. there's nothing safe about being in a car, no matter how many airbags you put in it.
>>15158451
>calling it b8 because you can't refute it
>>15158483
pitiful, your 400ci 200hp smog era iron block v8 is not even remotely comparable to a modern aluminum v8
>b-but ican modify
you can modify any sbc to made decent numbers
>bench seats are more comfortable
just cause your fat burger ass can't fit in a regular chair it doesn't mean benches are more comfortable. we got massaging seats on lots of cars now and even basic shit like an audi a4 is comfortable as hell. to each their own though i guess, if you think your cadillac brougham is the best thing since sliced i aint gonna stand in your way. also
>lwb anything
>crowded interior
try again. also
>being user friendly is no fun
are you looking this shit over before you post it or what
>>15158549
>what's called luxury now is a joke
let me translate
>i have never sat in a car worth more than 30g's
>>15160561
*tips fedora
isn't your 400 lb wife calling you trailer trash fuck
>>15160771
>posting a toyota tundra as an example.
ayy. Go back fucking your cousin, Daryl.
>>15157875
>E46 are garbage and worse than E36 or E30
uh
![footer_pacman[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/0qpsF0m.gif "footer_pacman[1].gif")
They're better in basically every way (other than looks, subjectively) when they roll off the factory line, but harder to work on yourself and fix on the side of the road at 2 AM with zipties if need be due to the increasing reliance on computer-controlled everything, tiny engine bays, manufacturer-specific whatzits and doodads requiring proprietary tools, and overall general unfriendliness to the user because "the public is stupid and can't be trusted to fix their own cars, only to pay $400 for an oil change at the dealership."
>>15160838
/thread
>>15160261
Tell me how you are after rolling over
>>15158439
Literally who other than soccer moms care about that?
>>15161307
Everyone who doesn't like dying while hauling ass or off-roading at the point where accidents happen. So if you include soccer mom's who control the auto purchases that's everyone except bus riding NEETS.
>>15158521
>stock 289 or 302 mustang
Yeah those things are economy engines.
>>15157766
>thinking that anything can replace that beefy roar of an old school v8 running down the highway
>>15161329
Only incompetents get into accidents. I'd rather have a well performing vehicle or a lighter more inexpensive vehicle then one that's safer.
>>15161359
>t. Someone who doesn't drive.
>>15161329
Bus riding NEETs are the smartest race, I thought this was common knowledge.
>>15161409
They don't make up any portion of an automaker's sales figures so they should stop complaining about not being catered to when all they want are 80s weeb death machines.
>>15161358
can we have videos of v8 cars that arent ridiculously loud or revved to hell?
i mean calming videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFsDguI2sxM
>>15161424
*God Machines
>>15158736
Panthers keep it up.
>>15160261
Was it a 10th generation F-150? They are well known for being exceptionally shit in a crash.
>>15161358
they sound terrible though
like theyre not even running properly
>>15161344
Yeah, no. The "Thriftpower" 6-cylinder engines were the base economy engines.
When will the "all old cars had fire-breathing V8s" meme end?
>>15160771
I ran a dyno and my 383ci engine makes 380hp / 370 foot lbs of torque. Granted I've redone the entire engine from carb to headers.
I'm not saying newer cars aren't more advanced, efficient, easier to keep up, more reliable and not fun, just that they aren't hobbyist vehicles. You can't really do anything to them. It's like calling yourself a carpentry enthusiast and then buying furniture from an outlet store rather than making it yourself. I honestly think people who rice out civics are bigger car people than those who buy new off the lot. At least they spend time and create something which is what the hobby is all about.
Also
>falling into gimmicky garbage like seat massagers
>>15162200
>seat massagers
>gimmicky
Dumb
>>15158494
THIS GUY GETS IT
>>15161488
Dumb question, but what exactly causes it to idle like that? I find it really calming, yet erotic.
Anyway, is it the carb'd engine plus an after market exhaust? Or did old cars like that, sound like that from the factory with stock everything? If they did, why don't manufacturers (e.g. Dodge and the Challenger) make a modern car that sounds just like this?
>>15161307
Auto racers
For driving experience and fun yeah probably
For daily driving and living with hell no.
I just got back from a drive to Ontario and boy you really feel it when the roads are rough
Objectively, yes.
Subjectively, fuck no.
>>15157829
We're arguing about and providing opinions on another person's opinion.
Don't think you can argue the r35 vs r34 objectively, because you fucking can't. Understand that the word "better" is 100% subjective.
>>15160271
Why the fuck would you put a 4 cylinder in it?
>>15167660
why would you put anything other than a boosted 4?
>>15167665
Because putting a 4 cylinder in it defeats the purpose of it being a muscle car?
>>15167673
Mustangs arent muscle cars, were talking about a car than ran 16s and 17s when stock, a turbo 4 is great for something as light as it is.
>>15157878
>If modern cars kept in the direction of the 90s and the gas crisis was never resolved, we'd have much more use of small displacement, turbocharged engines for fuel economy. With light weight and today's tech, they'd genuinely be great cars and hooning platforms.
What is Euro cars
>>15167588
How come I can't find any decent lt1 vettes in my area for under 6k.
>>15160271
>4 cylinder engine
>mustang
Holy shit just please kill yourself. That is disgraceful.
>>15167722
what is the Mustang II, Foxbody, and S550?
its a valid swap
>>15167731
and they've all been shitty economy type bullcrap.
If you put anything but a v8 in a mustang you're fucking doing it wrong.
>>15161846
panthers are also a relic of 20th century car design. they are classically designed large sedans. They also discontinued that body in 2011. earlier if we're talking non-fleet version
>>15167731
cars nobody fucking ever bought unless they wanted to show off how poor they are.
There's a reason mustangs are associated with V8's, and if you put anything but that in there you are just doing it wrong
you might as well just buy a fucking camry
>>15167750
what about a twin turbo straight 6?
>>15167750
SVO>GT in every way
Ecoboost>GT for modding
sorry youre stuck in 1965 with your antique boat anchors
>>15167764
SVO cost more than the GT bub
>>15167693
Because they don't sell decent lt1 c4s for 6k, certainly not around here.
A manual lt1 C4 in good condition at least where I live is 9 to 11 thousand.
>>15167804
The last one I bought lasted to 200k miles I bought it for 6k with 110k on the odo.
>>15167818
When was that?
>>15167832
4 years ago. It was my dad's, I bought it off him for 2k and drove it another 20k until the headgasket blew and my bitch mom told me to sell it.
>>15158637
What the fuck is this image trying to communicate? Half of the charts don't even have labeled axis. I can't tell shit here.
>>15167844
Your mom made you sell it? Are you sure you're not the bitch?
>>15167844
You got a real solid deal then
>>15167874
wasn't in my name faggot, and my mom is a huge cunt. Really wasn't my say considering I wasn't in a good financial position to move out and tell her to fuck off.
I would have fixed the headgasket myself and sold it but circumstances.
>>15158420
As someone posting from an actual g5 I can tell you my old Nokia brick at least works all the time. This piece of shit will randomly restart and fuck up all my settings, and battery life is shit. Sure it can do way more things and that's why I don't use my Nokia brick everyday. However, if I were to go backpacking and needed a phone for calls that won't let me down when I need it, I'll take the Nokia every time
>>15160261
anecdotal evidence.
Also, how do you know all the other 68 dodge w300 drivers weren't killed in their crashes? Would make it seem like ALL 68 dodge w300 drivers are survivors.
Statistically speaking, your vehicle is less safe, and more likely to see you dead.
>Selling your old man's Corvette
I bet you bought something she approved of when you got rid of it too, you friggin' cuck.
>>15167887
"Im not a bitch, i just need my mommy to pay my way and tell me what to do with my things is all"
Ok ok, so you're a little bitch then.
>>15158420
So a car that can track everything you do is a good thing?
Modern cars look like soap.
>>15158600
Try to fix a modern BMW without a masters in electrical engineering or the dealer tools. I dare you
>>15158637
>a bunch of random graphs and one huge normal distribution plot that seems completely irrelevent
..ok?
>>15167892
To be honest he ran it into the ground daily driving it to new york everyday and I put about 3k into restoring it. I cleared it over with him before selling it anyway. I then also went back to daily driving my motorcycle after I sold it, so yeah I didn't use the money to put a down payment on a prius or some shit.
>>15167894
Cool
>>15157766
Yes. Only complete and utter retards would disagree. And I owned a bunch of 70's and 80's cars in my life.
Modern Cars:
+ More Luxury
+ More Efficient
+ More Power
+ More Reliable
+ Better Tech
+ Safer
- Electric steering
- Electric throttle
- Pigfat (this is counteracted by having basic-bitch cars have like 150hp)
- Electric Everything
- Small windows
- Often stupid designs (see Lexus grill or look at the fucking Ford Fiesta sedan)
>>15158483
They also were carburated, MPGs in the lower 10s at best and had a 5K redline for top of the line models. Not to mention muh emissions
From an operational standpoint? Yeah.
But who gives a shit about being objectively faster, safer and efficient? I'll stick with my 30-year-old guzzler truck.
>>15157810
fuck off tripfag
Old cars are better (besides technology like power efficiency etc)
In general they have;
Better interior designs
Better turning radius
MUCH better visibility (like WTF are SUV designers thinking these days??)
No cheap fucking plastic dashboards
More varied colors, less silver and black
Easier to work on yourself
Just a lot more character, when cars were objects you worked for, built for people, and not appliances
>>15168514
>not appliances
>Chevette
>literally any other old timesy econobox of the day
>>15161359
>sitting at light changing my radio station
>wake up in hospital
>teenage girl texting embedded her altima into the back of my civic at 35-40 mph
>I'm an incompetent idiot
>>15167916
You're missing the point. It's not that I can fix a modern BMW. It's that I can pay someone to fix my BMW, and the fact that I can't do shade-tree repairs on it doesn't make it a shitty car.
>>15157766
Objectively? Yes.
Subjectively? In general no.
>>15160838
thank you
>>15161359
Only an ignorant idiot assumes that an accident will never happen to him
