Made it Ten years before getting Junked!

Rodders from the '60's were likely saying the same things comparing the new cars to the cars of the '30's that they were playing with.

 

There are a couple of exceptions to the Japanese car "rule". The 60's/70's Land Cruisers hold up quite well, even when used off road. Built on 40's/50's U.S. technology but converted to metric. Well just one exception anyway.

 

We had a '39 Chevy with 98,000 on it, still purring.

A '53 Chevy with stick (this was the proverbial babbitt eater) that went 106,000 and started consuming about 1/2 quart of oil between changes.

A '65 Chrysler that went 300,000 and still ran great and did not smoke but got wrecked, that motor came out and got a rebuild to keep a Road Runner on the road!

Yes, technology has progress. Better rings, oils, fuel, seals. I read somewhere that a model T today has about 50 percent more horse power because of these factors!

 

I disagree, respectfully, i dont even think that was a topic of conversation. the divide in quality/construction wasnt that great at that time, IMO.

 

Mileage does not equate with longevity.Sure,the plastic fantastic will go for 300k highway miles and need only a couple of tuneups,but we drive a lot more than we used to.A new car from the 50s never got driven as much as the new ones do now.We weren't as dependent upon cars back then.So,let your newer Honda sit a lot and drive short distances just once a day and see what condition it will be in after 20 years.My 2¢

 

I'm with desert and zman, i've been yard crawling around here lately on the weekends, and there are extremely few units older than 10-15 years old , and most have probably been sitting for a few years before they got to a wrecker.

I 've bought 60's/70's units that have sat 15 years or more outdoors, and with little or no new parts, some time, all ran great.

I doubt the neons and tempos that abound here in the scrappers would run like the old ones did after hibernation of more than a year.

my take,
mbmopar

 

^^^ Word to that MBmopar

 

Just because people drive cars longer today dont make then better. Back in the fifties and sixties It was the mind set to buy a new car or to trade up to a newer used car when you could afford to do so. Cars where comparitively cheap and newer was usually considered better. The banks wouldnt loan money on a high milage or a car over 7 years old. The insurance companies back then would total out a car for a fender bender if the book value was lower than the repair cost. Nowadays a new car can cost like financing a home folks will get a car and if its not giving trouble they drive it longer. We also change oil more often today. When cars where factory outfitted with a PCV system we started seeing more engines lasting over 100,000 miles. Im of the opinion that the late fifties, sixties and 70 vehicles will out last and out work and drive any newer vehicles made by anyone. A 57 chev was always in demand and always will be. No one is gonna be tooling up and making new replicas of todays crappy new vehicles 50 years fro now. OLdWolf

 

True that today the yards are full of fairly new cars with junk motors today simply because the cost of repairs exceeds the value of the car but most of those cars including the two year old Santurns you mentioned have well over 100K miles on them . I have two mid 80's Cads that both have over 200K miles on them and one is my daily driver. With an early 50's Cad you got a writeup in the local paper if you hit 100K with it without a complete major overhaul.

The norm on early 50's cars was a valve job at about 40K and an overhaul around 70K. 100K miles was rare and a big deal on those cars.


On that Olds that started the thread, it may have been the doner for a heart transplant in someone's hotrod or race car. figure in 1962 that car was probably worth about 250/300 bucks unless it was near perfect.

 

Install electronic ignition on a older car and it will go 40,000 on a set of spark plugs. It was our good high octane leaded gas that fouled the spark plugs OldWolf

 

that's laughable for 1st gen Saturns, I've watched more than a few hit 80k and self destruct.

The only early 90's car that I see that I think is worth anything with high mileage is 3 series BMW's... 400k is not a biggie.

 

I remember back in the 60's and 70's if a car had over 100,000 miles on it a person would just walk right on past it. My parts chaser has 215,000 and drives like a new one almost, but I also had old cars that went well over 100,000 miles because an engine swap or trans swap which was done in less than a day. I think it just depended on how much you really wanted to keep them on the road. One thing for sure, I'd rather swap out any 350/400 tranny then a front wheel drive tranny any day.

 

On a related note, I actually saw an 88 YUGO on the road friday! I had just been wondering if any of them were left and this ghost showed up.

 

I would bet that most younger drivers, won't know what a grease gun was if you laid one in there hands.

 

I can relate, as I have a Honda product from '92 that just hit 250,000 km. It has a few spots of rust, but it certainly isn't disintegrating. It also predates a lot of the more complicated electronic controls so it's easy to work on. It's a well-built car with a great degree of parts interchangeability between models and a lot of aftermarket support, so it's economical to keep on the road.

Other than the part about banks refusing to loan money on 7+ year old cars, have any of the other things really changed? Newer is still considered better, even if the older vehicle is still servicable. If the demand wasn't there I doubt we would have seen all the unsold new cars sitting on lots and loading docks when the economy went sour. The fact that those cars were selling before the downturn tells me that a lot of that demand was based on a perceived need as opposed to an actual one.

Also, I'd say insurance companies are still inclined to total off older vehicles (i.e. over 10-15 years old) and I'll add that mechanics are less inclined to work on those vehicles and tend to quote high on any repairs, at least in my experience. So the pressure to buy new is still evident.

 

Not GM, the gov't. And it isn't 80,000 its more like 125,000 miles. I work in the industry and basically when we test exhaust to 1 lifetime it is 150,000 miles. I've got 265,000 miles on my 2004 Trailblazer but most of those are highway miles. Highways didn't exist until the 50s and until '57 Michigan used a ferry to get between the two penninsulas. I can now drive about 12 hours and never leave my state. At 70+ mph.

Yeah, they are better made today but not with the heart and soul they once had.

 

Rethink what you said as well. 99% of the cars I see in junk yards are either wrecked,have really high miles,or you could obviously tell that whoever had them took zero care of em.

Older cars just weren`t built to rack up 100k miles in a year or two,trouble free.

 

I just realized something after i read what Danimal wrote. Cars of the fifties got beat up just on normal roads back then because the roads where shitty. just thought I would throw that in too.

 

x2.

 

I personally just wanna see more cars that didnt make it very long from new. Pics and the like.

 

this was a recent discussion at my local hang out, we came to the mutual conclusion the oil was crap back then. I have several OT cars that made it less than 10 years, even worse look at some of the odometers in my motorcycle junkyard, several didn't even make 2000 miles!

 

I could use the grille out of that car if you feel like snagging it.

 

Sure, the way a car is made has bearing on how long it'll last. So does the way it's cared for.
My '78 T-Bird hit 302K miles when I sold it
My wife's '74 Nova 350 hit 304,550 miles when we rebuilt the engine and drove it more.
My '97 Saturn's at 178K now. Parked outside work, waiting for me to go home.

I've always noticed that Volvo folks are more meticulous than most regarding maintenance. They're not really made that much better than a Chevy.

 

Yeah cars built since the 90's can sometimes go a long long time.

When I've been in CA and OR I've seen older 80's Hondas puttin' around.

But I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a Chevy Citation, 1987 Hyundai, a Renault Lecar, a Peugeot, a Plymouth Volare... Cars rust out and folks don't put money into them.

My f'law tells me that in the 50's his dad's body shop would fix cars for rust in MI that only were 3-4 years old.

 

This thread took a bad turn awhile back.... I need to get a pic of my 58 Edsels plate. 77,000 miles, plate is from 1964. After getting it moved from its storage location, we actually got it to start. Also found out why it was parked. The column shift linkage was toast (it is a stick) The thing felt like it was shifting, but was actually jambed in reverse. So when she fired, it almost made a new garage door.

 

my 98 saturn just died at 270K , I'll be honest oil chages were few and far between and I dove the piss out of it, if the temp sensor hadn't crapped out I think I wouldn't have had head gasket trouble and then compression trouble and I would be racking up the miles toward 300K. so I see both sides I love old cars for their design and soul but have to appreciate the usage I get out of newer ones.
Chris

 

I personally just wanna see more cars that didnt make it very long from new. Pics and the like. he he copy and paste.

 

Heres a Shoebox that almost made it twenty years...

 

In 1964 the average driver here on the east coast put 10-12K on the clock in a year. In 10 years it had over 100K. People did not and still don't, perform maintenance so most were toast. We were really becoming affluent and we traded a car in every other year or so before the trade in value was zero. That's one of the reasons that the auto makers changed styling so often.

The loans were for 3 years and when it was paid off we started looking to see what was hot. Today with the 5 year loans there is no equity left in your trade that you put 24K on a year.

 

At a local old junkyard there are quite a few cars that were not driven 10 years,some look like they were just parked and a some were severly damaged. 55 ford 4 door with 62 tags,52 or 53 Ford 2 door with 54 front sheetmetal with 60 tags,53 Packard has 57 tags but t boned in the side and a 67 Impala SS with 70 tags but hit hard in the front plus a 71 Mustang with 72 tags and completely burnt. I got looking on the frame pile and seen others that did not make it 10 years and alot of early 50s cars that did not get driven out of the 50s.