Made it Ten years before getting Junked!

I know this is now the only instance, in fact I think it was prolly relatively common.

Friend of mine took me back out to look at a car I had seen once before way out in the hills at there old dump site. 1954 Oldsmobile 4dr 88. Had to laugh when I saw that the front plate was from 64!!! It made it only a decade!

Show and tell your own finds if you have them...

This baby isnt going anywhere so I salvaged the emblems and going back for the front bumper this spring.

 

My dad's 54 Olds made it until 1967. Modern cars last much longer but they only come in two colors: Some shade of silver or some shade of gray.

 

whoops... heres the pics

 

What's so funny? Neglect?

 

AND.... he showed me whats left of his grandma's first car. She told me she learned to drive in it. I'd dont know fords of this year as good as I should but I was guessing 38-39?

 

Better to laugh then the opposite

 

10 years was a pretty good run for an older car before the 70's-80's. Remember the warranties back then lasted until about sunset of the day you bought them and it was near a miracle to get more than 50-60K miles out of anything before they needed extensive work that usually sidelined them. 100K miles was damn near a miracle and usually not a story to be completely believed.

 

If that's a peak I see running along the top of the fender it's a '37.

 

I got that beat.

This photo is of what's left of a Corvair flat-six engine, in the mud of the floor of this old garage along the side of the Seward Highway just outside of Anchorage, Alaska.

The garage is part of a long-abandoned way station, which sank and was flooded during the March, 1964 "Good Friday" earthquake.

So, since Corvairs were first made in '59, the car made it less than five years, before needing to have the motor yanked for service.

And, somewhere around here (I'm looking) I have a pic of a '47 (I think) Buick still wearing it's 1952 or '53 plates.

Doc.

 

------------------------------
It looks like a '37 Ford to me too. That Olds
is definitely toast..... but I think that '37 is
worth saving!

Mart3406
===========================

 

That is a 37 ford fordor.

 

This one made it to 1960 before it got beaned in the front and parked.

would have been fixable even 40 years later if the little shits didn't break all the glass out of it..

 

I think it's a '37 as well. The grill and bumper on that Olds look like they are in pretty decent shape.

 

In 1964 I bought a 1954 Chevy for $50. The rocker shaft was badly worn and it used a lot of oil. The front end was shot and wouldn't hold an alignment. And it had started to rust. That car only lasted another year and a half with me and it was junk.

Today's cars may be boring as hell but they are way better built.

 

Rethink that last sentence...its not unusual to see 5 year old cars in a wrecking yard today for major mechanical failure.
when I had my yard a few years ago, we bought 2 year old Saturns for $200...all had blown motors.
The yard was full of cars less than 10 years old.

Lets see if a new anything is around in 40 years..I think not.

 

Here's a Kaiser, that I was told was a '53, though I don't know for sure, with '60 plates. So just seven years before hitting the scrapyard...

-While I don't doubt the anecdotal evidence, P51 is correct. A car from the mid-60s was basically worn plumb out by 95,000 miles. Besides the usual consumables like brakes, the axle seals would be shot, the carb would be in dire need of a rebuild, it'd smoke and burn oil, and it'd be on it's 20th set of plugs and points.

Today, a car can, and most often does, go 50K miles before needing any sort of tune-up. Brakes last longer, seals last longer. A car with 150,000 miles is still considered to have a fair amount of life left in it.

Body panels are now galvanized, exhausts are more and more often stainless steel. GM mandates that their catalytic converters must last 80,000 miles. A '65 Impala with 80K miles would be on it's third exhaust system unless it was a SoCal or Arizona car.

Yes, today's cars are built way better- they damn well better be. They cost like six times more.

Doc.

 

I have to admit the newer cars last a whole lot longer before they need major repair for the most part. There will always be exceptions to that statment though. But damn I just can't fall in love with them like I can the 60's and older vehickles. They may run longer & better but to me they are just a way to work or the grocery store. If it breaks no big deal just get another and junk this one. JMO.

 

One of my 55 Oldsmobiles has 96K on it and is still fine. As long as they don't sit for too many years without action, I've always had good luck with them. Figure the trans needed a go over simply for time lapsed. Mechanic checked it out and said it was fine and it still is. Even tough the engine didn't receive the maintenance it should have, it was still running fine near 100K. I swapped in a new mill simply because I found a great deal on a new engine. I'll have to check back to rocketgirl88 stories, but I know there was a story about a 55 Olds that had 300K on it when they sold it still running good. Maybe the 54 was ripped up early, but hard to tell because of it's current condition. But I've always had the best of luck with BOP's of the mid 50's.

 

I have to agree with desert on this. I see quite a few new cars that are crap within a couple years. Hell look at stuff from the early 90's even, mostly clapped out junk. Yeah there may be computers and fuel injection but I don't see them built better giving the advancements in technology. Any car taken care of decently seems to last ok, but old cars seem to put up with a little more. People here just parked there old car out in a field when they got a new one, half the time there was nothing wrong with it. I can pull a 50+ year old car out of a field and a lot of times get it running. Pick anything from the 80's or 90's and let it sit for 5 years and it's pretty much toast.

 

A lot of the older cars rusted out before they wore out mechanically. Junkyards around here (Georgia) used to buy relatively low mileage cars from up north that were rusted all to pieces to get engines and transmissions. Basic maintenance, lube and oil changes are essential on anything. Well maintained older cars lasted a long time. My '55 Ford (parents bought it new) went 174,000 on the original engine with only oil changes and tuneups.

 

Just look at a typical service manual from the old days. 28 grease points every 1000 miles, valve jobs at 30,000, rings, bearings, etc. By the time a car hit 80,000 miles just about every wearable part would have been replaced and most owners would give up on a car well before then. Today a spark plug lasts 100,000 miles.

 

Exactly..it is a game with us to try and spot "old" Japanese cars..If they were (are) so great where are all the old ones? When you start being aware of it you will rarely spot anything from the 70s or even 80s..they are disposable and just aren't worth it to keep them going...

 

Actually, the gov't mandates that automakers warrant all emissions systems to last that long. As far as cost goes, if you are to take a $2,000 new car in 1962 and convert that to today's dollars, it would cost $14,350.00, so it's not very different at all, in terms of cost.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

 

http://growingbolder.com/media/technology/vehicles/romancing-the-road-259598.html#content_tabs


Maintenance.

 

Japanese cars from the 70's and 80's are junk and didn't last, but get into the 90's and you can run them 200,000 miles plus. They don't even rust as bad as they used to.

Not a popular view on this website, but I bought a Honda Civic with 150,000 kms on it (about 93,000 miles) for 3 grand and have put maybe $300.00 in parts in it, change the oil once in a while and drive it like a rental car and she just keeps on going, up to 280,000 kms (174,000 miles) now. The trans is noisy, the clutch is up near the top, but she gets me to work every day with minimal work done to it.

BTW, this is a Canadian car, built in Alliston Ontario by Canadians.

That being said, I have a '99 Plymouth Mini Van with almost 300,000 kms (186,000 miles) on it with the only major problem being a transmission that was rebuilt at 147,000 kms (91,000 miles).

Although I love old cars and trucks, I just don't see that many miles being piled up on an older one without having it strand me somewhere every once in a while.

 

Comment on the new versus old... Modern vehicles IMO mechanical may have advances that extend their operating life with LIMITED maintenence comparitively, however as a whole, vehicle of yore where constructed of MORE longer lasting materials. Granted, every car rusted ins certain areas worse then others and specific situations lead to earlier retirement due to neglect, but generally the life span of old vehicle to modern with be won over by the old. Not sure if this is 100% spot on, but someone told me the average life span of a dollar bill is six months, and the average life span of a dollar coin is sixty years. I think the more cars become plasticy the sooner they will deteriate as a whole. Hell, I think cars of today are designed to be recycled so that we all have to spend the money on new models. my two cents

 

Old or new. It goes back to maintenance and having the ability to work on them yourself. I put a new clutch in my 1990 240sx at 250,000 miles, where at that mileage most people would have scrapped it after they got an estimate from a dealer, got 310,000 on it now. I work for the railroad and I see "new" cars scrapped in railcars and bet most were either: 1) run without oil or coolant or 2) Needed just an alternator,starter, or fuel pump and were told the engine was toast.

 

See, I told you it wouldn't be popular!