Short answer: Yes.
My reason for asking is this paragraph from a recent Tyler Cowen post:
I walked to my (non-fancy) car and turned on the ignition right after watching the movie. It was immediately striking how much better and more reliable was the software in my car than in the whole well-funded moon program. In this sense technological progress has been immense. That said, most cars in operation today are not that much better than cars from 1969, and they perform more or less the same functions, albeit more safely. Improving car manufacture is not that hard, but improving the usefulness of cars in our daily lives is where the problem lies.
I’m challenging the second-last sentence and to some extent the last sentence.
That said, most cars in operation today are not that much better than cars from 1969, and they perform more or less the same functions, albeit more safely.
Tyler and I agree on safety. The increase in safety has been immense. In 1969, there were 53,543 vehicle fatalities in the United States, a rate of 5.04 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. By 2016, that was down to 37,461 fatalities; the rate per 100 million miles driven had plummeted to 1.18, a drop of over 76 percent.
But we disagree about the quality of cars. Of course Pillar of Economic Wisdom #7 says that the value of a good or service is subjective. So if Tyler doesn’t value the cars of today much more than he valued the ones almost 50 years ago, who am I to object?
Still, I think there are 3 major dimensions, aside from safety, on which cars are better:
- Durability. It was common in the late 1960s and through the 1970s to have cars that didn’t last 100,000 miles without major problems. Now cars that go well over 100k miles without major problems are commonplace.
- Functionality. Power steering, ABS brakes, and power windows are almost standard. Transmissions are better. Fuel economy is way better. Cars are more comfortable.
- Entertainment. Radios and CD players are way better because in 1969 you didn’t even have CD players. You can hook up your phone to your car stereo system and play music. You can use Spotify and other cheap ways of playing your own music. You have CiriusXM radio as an option. Also, if you want to make a phone call from your car and not take your hands off the steering wheel, that’s easy to do on many cars.
Improving car manufacture is not that hard, but improving the usefulness of cars in our daily lives is where the problem lies.
See #3 above.
I can see one main way in which cars are worse: they tend to look the same. They’re kind of boring looking. Maybe that’s what Tyler had in mind.
For that, by the way, blame the feds. Their fuel economy regulations cause the companies to choose more aerodynamic designs than otherwise. (Of course, the upside is that you get more fuel economy.)
READER COMMENTS
Chris
Oct 22 2018 at 2:59pm
“most cars in operation today are not that much better than cars from 1969”
The last time I woke on a cold Chicago morning wondering if my car would start was roughly 1989.
John
Oct 28 2018 at 4:34pm
Several years ago, I rode with a tow truck driver dragging my car to the dealer. He said he had been doing it for 25 years and I asked how things had changed. He immediately said that cars are better. His firm had dropped from 50 trucks down to 25 because there just wasn’t as much business.
robc
Oct 22 2018 at 3:11pm
The other way they might be worse is the ability to fix them.
I am not a car guy, so this doesn’t matter to me, but I know plenty of people who want to be able to fix their car at home when it breaks. And then is much more difficult today than 50 years ago.
Sarah Skwire
Oct 22 2018 at 3:49pm
I think something that both you and Tyler have overlooked is the importance of many of the changes to post 1969 cars for women who drive. Power steering has made driving much easier for small and slighter people–who are, in many cases, female drivers. (The first time I drove a car with no power steering I remember thinking, “I bet THIS is why there were so many jokes about bad women drivers! This takes a lot of strength!!) The ability to calibrate seat adjustments more finely means that I can make cars fit me properly. (The first cars I drove, in the 80s, put me dangerously close to the steering wheel in order to reach the pedals, and had seats so far off the ground I couldn’t put my heel down when I pressed the gas.) Many cars “remember” seat adjustments as well, which greatly reduces the aggravation and time cost when a taller person uses my car and I have to return the seat to where I like it. The back lift gate of my Subaru outback opens and closes at the touch of a button on the dash or on my key chain, which is helpful since when it’s open I can barely reach the handle to close it manually. And many mini-vans now have sliding passenger doors that open in similarly automated fashion–making life and errands easier for anyone who travels regularly with small kids and needs to open car doors, manage grocery bags, AND keep a hand on each kid in a busy parking lot.
So I’d add “serving the needs of a wider range of drivers” to the list of post 1969 improvements. We’ve certainly come a long way since the car salesman took care to point out the passenger side make up mirror to women as an incentive to buy!
RPLong
Oct 22 2018 at 4:19pm
In support of your first point, I remember seeing a car commercial when I was a boy in the 80s (the manufacturer eludes me now) that tried to make a viral campaign out of the question “Where were you when your car reached 100,000 miles?” The implication: “Our” cars last for 100,000 miles, while “their” cars don’t.
In support of your third point, and contra Cowen’s semi-dismissal of the importance of entertainment and software, I’ll add this: I just spent three years living with an hour-each-way commute to work. Navigation, hands-free technology, and entertainment are enormously important for people making long commutes. I’d guess that these are strong enough incentives to affect the number of long-range commuters in the workforce. This improvement to the quality of modern automobiles has enabled a more mobile workforce, and thus likely has improved productivity, as people are now able to find better job matches further away from home.
Adam Ruth
Nov 17 2018 at 5:02pm
That would be Volvo. I remember the little badges you could get for the grill to show off your many miles.
Joshua
Oct 22 2018 at 4:37pm
Typo I assume. Or I’m confused by the exotic triple negative.
I’d say it was either common for cars not to last 100,000 miles, or uncommon for them to last beyond 100,000 miles. Anyway, you got your point across.
David Henderson
Oct 22 2018 at 5:46pm
Thanks. Change made.
David Henderson
Oct 22 2018 at 5:55pm
Thanks, Sarah. All great comments.
One highlight:
You and me both, sister.
Alan Goldhammer
Oct 22 2018 at 6:11pm
It was humorous to see everyone piling on Tyler who wasn’t even of driving age until 1978! It is really difficult to point to any part of the current automobile that is not better than those of 50 years ago. One big area of improvement that I mentioned on Tyler’s blog is rust protection. You don’t see cars rusting through in our area where a lot of road salt is used (Washington DC). I don’t even know if Ziebart (after market rust protection company) is even in business these days.
Let’s also not forget that tire manufacturing is much better these days. Over that last 30 years I think we have had only a couple of flats and most of these occurred over night and not on the road while driving.
Joe Mack
Oct 28 2018 at 8:58pm
Wish I could put Tyler into a POS typical car from 50 years ago or less. Maybe a Vega?
Always a doubt whether it would start, how much oil it would go through. There was a reason gas stations checked oil. It was to sell some!
An Accord or Camry has unimaginable comfort and luxury compared to anything other than cars for millionaires.
No, Tyler, they don’t fly and traffic is a pain, but cars are logarithmically better now.
David Henderson
Oct 22 2018 at 6:25pm
Great points, RPLong.
Chris Meisenzahl
Oct 22 2018 at 6:25pm
I’ve owned cars from the 60s to a 2018 Subaru and a ton of things in between. Many different brands. The reliability and longevity is _dramatically_ improved in that time. It’s not even close. And comfort and entertainment of course as well.
David Henderson
Oct 22 2018 at 6:26pm
Thanks, Alan. Yes, I had the same thought about Ziebart. I looked it up and it’s still around but I’m guessing with a larger share of a much smaller market, as often happens in declining industries.
Pajser
Oct 22 2018 at 9:26pm
I think difference is disappointingly small. Lamborghini Miura, the dream car of my youth is still faster than say, BMW 740, close-to-the top model of very reputable producer. One can ask “why would one need faster car than Miura” but if one asks that question 50+ years later, it implies that cars didn’t develop much. And if it counts, I think it does, Miura is still prettier than almost anything on the streets. Even that traffic accident reduction – 76% is roughly as much as child mortality is reduced (strange, isn’t it), and child’s body is much more complicated mechanism, which cannot be redesigned, and its life cannot be redesigned as roads can. I guess that technical problem is in concept of the moving with rubber made wheels on asphalt which even sounds primitive, compared to say, railroad and possibilities of its development, but that path is not taken due to some market failure.
Greg
Oct 28 2018 at 5:41pm
According to Wikipedia, a Lamborghini Miura P-400 had a 0-60 time of 7.0 seconds. A P400s had a time of 6.7 seconds. A BMW 740i does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds.
The Miura was priced at $20,000 in the 1960s, or about $151,000 in today’s dollars. My Subaru WRX will do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds , a full second faster than the Miura. It cost me $33,000. It also has all kinds of power, safety and comfort features that the Miura doesn’t have, and is much more durable.
Charley Hooper
Oct 22 2018 at 11:44pm
Care are so much better now, it’s not even close. Those of us who like older cars do so knowing that older cars have significant downsides.
I remember going on trips and searching for sources of water, such as creeks, to fill our ailing radiator. On another trip in the summer we drove with the heater on to prevent the car from overheating. A trip to Canada left us with a car that couldn’t travel at highway speeds and, due to the slower travel, we celebrated my mother’s birthday on the road.
Here’s what’s better: tires (radials vs. bias ply), brakes (disc vs. drum), cooling systems, emission controls, power, reliability, gas mileage, electrical systems, rust protection, paint, oil consumption, temperature control (heater and A/C), headlights, taillights, electronic entertainment, safety, weatherstripping, suspensions, remote entry/locking, transmissions, maintenance intervals, seating, drink holders, outside temperature readings, tire pressure sensors, and sound insulation. Whew!
S D
Oct 23 2018 at 3:16am
I still remember the deep, hours-long discomfort of being stuck in the back of a 1986 Citroén with no air conditioning. My parents were taking a three-day trip through France in July in 33 degree heat and it was oppressive. (The car also broke down on the side of the road)
With air conditioning as standard in pretty much all cars now, it’s something I don’t have to inflict on my own children.
J Scheppers
Oct 23 2018 at 11:06am
The death prevention is not complete enumerated. Emissions reductions in saving years of life are significant. There is no more lead in your gas and look at these emission reductions as calculated by EPA since 1990. I remember the smell of cars in 1970 so imagine the clean up from 1960 when we are bench marking these. Cars are not the only source of improved air quality but it did play a key role.
Nationally, concentrations of air pollutants have dropped significantly since 1990:
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour, 77%
Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average, 80%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual, 56%
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour, 50%
Ozone (O3) 8-Hour, 22%
Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM10) 24-Hour, 34%
Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Annual, 41%
Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 24-Hour, 40%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour, 88%
Numerous air toxics have declined with percentages varying by pollutant
During this same period, the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.
Source: https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/#highlights
Mark Carbonaro
Oct 23 2018 at 2:32pm
I agree with the majority of posters – cars are so much better today than ever – and I’m an lover of old cars. I actually drive a restored 1965 Ford Mustang. It’s a fun car to drive, but it is in no way the equal of any new car. It is deficient in nearly every respect when compared to a new car. It’s less safe (no crumple zones, no headrests on the back of seats, only lap belts), but it wins when it comes to a fun driving experience. I’ve restored this vehicle and I have added (at a not insignificant expense) many high performance items that enhance the driveability of the vehicle and make it competitive with newer cars on the road. As an aside, a good friend of mine recently purchased a 2015 Honda Accord – a great car. They paid $22k for that vehicle. My Mustang has been valued at around $23k. Next year, the Honda may be “blue booked” at $19k or $20k. My Mustang will either hold its value or increase in value. From a standpoint, of which car is better, the Mustang loses. But when it comes to public perception and desire, the classic Mustang wins. Markets can sometimes be strange.
Tiago
Oct 24 2018 at 10:24am
I grew up in a very hot city. Ubiquitous air-conditioning alone would convince me that cars today are several times better.
mike davis
Oct 24 2018 at 11:05am
I was surprised by Tyler’s take on cars and I’m glad that David and others (Horowitz?) have offered a rebuttal. Cars have clearly gotten much better in the three dimensions discussed: safety, durability and comfort. And this is clearly a big deal. (If you don’t believe it, come to Dallas and take a ride in my ’65 Mustang. But if you’re under the age of 40, I will not let you drive since you almost certainly don’t know how to properly operate a clutch.)
It’s also worth noting is that the improvements in 2 of the dimensions were dictated by the market, not the government. Cars last longer and are more pleasant to drive because that’s what people want. I may just be expressing the priors of an optimistic libertarian but I think it is quite likely the market would have forced an improvement in the safety of cars even if the government hadn’t imposed stricter safety standards. (And a really optimistic libertarian might argue that today’s cars would be even safer without the rules since manufacturers would have had more freedom to innovate.)
Thaomas
Oct 24 2018 at 11:28am
The main reason that cars do not produce a MUCH better driving experience is the failure of localities to use congestion pricing for the use of streets and roads for both driving and parking. The same system should probably be used to charge a per mile driven to finance road maintenance and construction, leaving the gasoline tax as a gesture toward taxing net CO2 emissions, pending the introduction of a carbon tax.
Floccina
Oct 24 2018 at 11:32am
Also the new cars have much cleaner exhaust now which contributes to cleaner air we breath in our cities today.
David Johnson
Oct 24 2018 at 3:06pm
I agree that cars are much better today. However my father had a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 that had power brakes and steering, power windows and air conditioning. It had a 352 engine with a four barrell carborator. I buried the spedominator at 120 mph on a flat road in Western Minnesota.
But the safety features were a lap seatbealt, no air bags no shoulder restaint and minimal adjustable seats.
I have had four minivans and they are the greatest affordable family car ever made.
My current car is a 2010 Honda Crosstour bought new that has 102,000 miles on it It is still a dream to drive with a little bit of fun thrown in. It has a v-6 and I get 25-27 miles per gallen on a trip from Minneapolis to Green Bay. When I travel west through ND and Montana my speed increases and gas miliage decreases to about 24 mph driving 75 mph in Western Minnesota and ND. In Monday I drive between 80-85. The speed limit in ND is 75 and 80 in Montana. Minnesota is 70 but the Highway Patrol does not stop you at 75. The car has no rust and the twin cities and it suburbs are the salt capital of the country.
I would not trade my current vehicles for anything made in the 60s or 70s. My brother in Dallas last year purchased a 66 Mustang. I has him if he would drive to Minnesota. He said are you nuts. Last year I purchased 2009 BMW 134i convertable and drove it to Montana. It was great fun in the mountains and the foothills to the mountains.
Spencer Broome
Oct 24 2018 at 7:34pm
This is such a simple topic, yet one that I have never really put much thought into. Are cars in the current age better than those of fifty years ago? Well to put that into perspective, computers today are much better than computers from even ten years ago. This is because our technology has advanced since then due to a high demands for innovations in these areas. We can now get a machine ten times as powerful in a quarter of the size. Translate this over to cars and you get more fuel efficient engines and lighter materials used to make the cars which in turn makes them require less torque to move.
I would say cars are better than they were fifty years ago. Not only can I come to this conclusion because of better technology and higher fuel efficiency, but safety. The frames of cars are built with the safety of the passengers in mind. On top of this protective shell on the outside, we now have air bags which will prevent the passengers from hitting the hard interior of the vehicle. Not to mention the infamous seat belt which helps you to not be thrown out of the windshield or into the back of someone else’s seat. By these standards, I would feel much better riding in a modern car than one that was made fifty or more years ago. They are just more safe, efficient, and eco-friendly.
Jonathan Meer
Oct 24 2018 at 8:10pm
It’s not even close for ~20 years ago, let alone 50. My across-the-street neighbor who is almost 80 just bought himself a really nice new pickup truck. I’d actually read about some of the features – like a camera-screen rearview mirror (which can be used as a regular rearview mirror also) – for much better visibility in a large vehicle like that.
We were talking about how much cars are better now than my youth (I started driving in the mid-1990s and my first car was an abysmal 1983 Ford Fairmont), let alone his first driving experiences in the mid-1950s. My second car was a 1986 Buick Regal with a 5.0L V8 that developed 140hp. I never understood how they got so little power out of such a large engine.
Even the differences between my 2010 car and my wife’s very similar but 2015-model-year car are palpable in terms of the tech gadgetry and safety features (blindspot monitoring, etc). You can get radar-guided cruise control, automatic emergency braking, lane-keeping, and other features in a $25,000 Mazda or Kia these days.
To get a good sense of how much things have changed even at the very top end, check out Doug DeMuro’s review of a 21 year old Rolls Royce (1996 model year). I think you get better features in a more modern mid-range luxury car: https://www.autotrader.com/car-video/heres-what-300000-rolls-royce-was-1996-265253
Mark Bahner
Oct 24 2018 at 11:58pm
Here’s what the *transportation system* is going to be like by 2040 (a little more than 20 years from now):
Virtually all passenger miles will be traveled by autonomous vehicles providing transportation-as-a-service.
Average costs per passenger-mile traveled will be less than half the current value (about 60 cents per mile), when adjusted for inflation.
Deaths per passenger mile will be cut by more than 90 percent from today’s value of about 1.2 deaths per 100 million miles. (Note: The original post value should be 1.18 deaths per 100 million miles, not per million miles.)
Interstate travel speeds will average 100+ mph.
Traffic jams will be virtually unheard of.
Cars will routinely pass each other at 90 degree angles, separated by less than a few car lengths, at intersections.
The *most common* vehicle in the U.S. will be a single-seat, single-occupant vehicle.
David Henderson
Oct 25 2018 at 7:48pm
Thanks for the correction, Mark. I’ll make it in the original post shortly.
Mark Brady
Oct 25 2018 at 1:43am
“Everybody is right about the improvements since 1969, but I think that misses Tyler’s point which is that the fundamental utility of a car — what it enables people to do, how it affects lives and the texture of society — has changed little since 1969. That’s true. And, in fact, it’s almost equally true compared to 1929. Cars do what they do — having a Model T rather than no car represents a *vastly* bigger change than having a Honda Accord rather than a Model T.” — Slocum commenting on Tyler’s post.
That was how I too read Tyler’s point.
Glenn Mercer
Oct 28 2018 at 5:30pm
I agree with you, that your read is what Tyler actually meant. That the core functionality of the car has not much changed. But I think we run into a quantitative versus qualitative problem here. If pushed hard enough, almost any product could be said to have not changed core functionality. A phone is still just a means for communicating. A cave and a mansion are both just places to live. A bottle rocket and the Saturn V are both just rockets. So at what point do incremental quantitative changes (the rocket goes higher, carries larger payloads; the car goes faster, doesn’t kill its passengers at such a great rate) add up to a qualitative change? A rocket that never blows up and kills its passengers, and costs only $10,000 to get 10 tons of stuff into orbit, would revolutionize travel, accelerate the timeline for getting to Mars, etc. But a Future Tyler could still say “It’s still a cylinder full of fuel that flies up into space, I don’t see much real change.” All in all, I would — using your take on Tyler’s original comment, which I agree is the correct take — say that the quant changes in the car have added up to a qual transformation.
T Boyle
Oct 25 2018 at 8:50am
“Having a Model T rather than no car represents a *vastly* bigger change than having a Honda Accord rather than a Model T”
That struck me as possibly not true.
A quick search shows that the Model T topped out at 45 mph; the Accord will do more than double that. Old car forums suggest that 30-35 mph is a good cruising speed, on modern roads, for the T; the Accord will be happy at twice that speed. And, the Accord will get you there, if the distance is less than about 250,000 miles; the T might get you there, if it’s not too far.
What was the alternative to the T? A bicycle. It would cruise at 10 mph, with high reliability.
So, 2-hour range with bicycle: 20 miles. It will get there if you bring a tire kit.
2-hour range with T: 65 miles (+ 45 miles, assuming it keeps going)
2-hour range with Accord: 130 miles (+ 65 miles, and it will get there)
The step up from the T to the Accord is bigger than the step from “no car” to the T.
David Henderson
Oct 25 2018 at 9:37am
Nice numerate analysis, T Boyle. Thank you.
Paul Downs
Oct 28 2018 at 3:18pm
Nice analysis, but doesn’t take into account terrain and weather. I’d guess that a Model T beats a bike in any amount of rain, winds over 15 mph, temperature under 55 degrees or over 75 degrees, and hills over 3%. And most trips are a lot less than 2 hours, so the differential advantage of the newer car/Model T is much less than the step from bike to car. And I say this speaking as a regular cycle commuter.
CRT
Oct 25 2018 at 10:57am
“Most cars in operation today are not that much better than cars from 1969.” I disagree with the article above, while they did list safety as being better they didn’t really act like safety made that big of a difference overall. While safety is probably the most important function to me. I have had multiple family members back in the days where they wrecked and their airbags either didn’t work or they didn’t have any in their trucks and cars.
Not only has the safety greatly improved, but I can go a lot farther but I can also cruise at a faster speed than most of the older cars were recommended to go. There are so many new features that have been added for luxury. Just in my new 2017 Nissan Versa Note that I bought last year, it has a backup camera, hands-free speaker where I can make calls without being on my phone, Bluetooth radio, and plus more features.
While safety is probably the number one thing for me, I can’t drive a lot of the older cars without using a pillow to sit on. I am only 5’0, so being able to raise and move my seat forward how I need it to be is awesome. It makes my life so much easier. In my first car i got, I had a hard time reaching the pedals and I also had a hard time seeing over the steering wheel. My new car even lets me move the steering wheel a lot more than I used to could.
Overall, I just believe that the newer cars are way better than the older cars. The older cars can look a whole lot better though. But that’s just my opinion.
Mark Bahner
Oct 26 2018 at 7:02pm
Here are some old car make and models compared with new ones of the same make and model:
Old versus new Toyota Corolla
Old versus new Ford Mustang
Old versus new Honda Civic Wagon
Not to offer an opinion one way or the other, just observing: 1) It looks like the newer cars are lower-slung (lower to the ground), and 2) It looks like the newer cars have more curves/bends within the body panels (new manufacturing technology allows this).
MattB
Oct 25 2018 at 11:29am
The performance of the average car has greatly improved as well. Braking distances are better, acceleration is better, transmissions are better. I have many memories of driving cars in the 80s that could barely make it up the hill near my house unless you built up some speed. Also you would be hard pressed to go faster than 65-75 mph on the freeway.
Sparrow
Oct 25 2018 at 6:27pm
I think you’ve pretty much nailed it. Little macho, or machismo, in the post 70’s cars, either in appearance or performance, except for the few models. Also, as was noted, the ability to do even moderate work on them is absent. Reliability is certainly improved.
Charley Hooper
Oct 25 2018 at 7:52pm
One improvement I forgot to mention: front-wheel drive.
Jon Coyle
Oct 28 2018 at 1:22pm
I agree with Tyler: they do provide the same function, just more safely. The whole purpose of a car, from the beginning, was to move a person from here to there faster than the horse/horse & buggy. That remains true today. When I want to use my phone, pc, listen or listen to music, a car isn’t my first choice to do it. It hasn’t replaced the home or office. The “person mover” has become safer in every way, from the tires, to safe glass, to ABS, to amazing suspensions….the list goes on and on. Other things make it safe apart from the industry…..better roads, better signage, standard lane widths…..all kinds of things.
Improving manufacturing is incredibly difficult because we are living in an era of “peak car manufacturing”. Every car company has decades…sometimes a century, of research and experience to draw from. Every manufacturer has people who have worked for every other manufacturer….there are few secrets kept long. The 100,000 mile braggart of 1978 is equivalent to the 300,000 mile braggart today…..all from peak manufacturing.
Mr. Econotarian
Oct 28 2018 at 2:13pm
Radar-adaptive cruise control is a huge improvement for driver enjoyment of long, traffic congested commutes. It really lets you concentrate on listening to the EconTalk podcast!
John
Oct 28 2018 at 4:12pm
<I>Lamborghini Miura, the dream car of my youth is still faster than say, BMW 740, close-to-the top model of very reputable producer.</I>
The Miura did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. Which happens to be exactly the same as a Toyota Camry V-6 or a 4-cyl (turbo) Honda Accord.
The modem equivalents of the Miura do 0-60 in the mid 2 to mid 3 second 0-60 range.
Jim Meek
Oct 29 2018 at 3:11am
I didn’t notice anyone mentioning all-wheel drive, available now on so many cars at little extra cost and a tremendous aid in bad winter weather in the north.
Vivian Darkbloom
Oct 29 2018 at 5:56am
Cars are undoubtedly much better today than they were 50 years ago. However, are they a better *value*? I didn’t expect those additional improvements to cars to have come at such a relatively high cost in terms of real dollars, at least as reflected in the following study:
https://www.gobankingrates.com/saving-money/car/heres-much-car-today-would-cost-year-were-born/
You get what you pay for?
John
Oct 29 2018 at 6:39am
Reliability and longevity are in the in eye of the driver. Here in Africa, as in South East Asia where I lived for 9 years, older cars are highly valued, particularly those built before the introduction of the complicated electronics required to meet new developed-world emissions standards as well as the softer (less durable) suspensions of the soccer mom SUV era. I own a tough, simple Toyota Land Cruiser from 1995, and the most troublesome parts of the vehicle are the emissions controls and power windows/door locks. It’s all about simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Because, in the languages found throughout the developing world, that translates into durability.
Butler T. Reynolds
Oct 29 2018 at 10:36am
Around 2000 a young co-worker who thought all things 1970s were cool, told me that he was going to buy a 1977 Cadillac from an old lady who had put ridiculously few miles on it.
I tried to warn him that not only was the car itself old, but also that cars from the 1970s, even when new, weren’t like the cars he was used to driving.
He bought it anyway. The first cold morning of the year he arrived at work late. He said the car wouldn’t start. I imitated the noise of an older car that wouldn’t crank.
“That’s it!” he said. I told him, “Welcome to the 1970s. Fuel injection wasn’t a thing yet.”
He kept the car only about a year.
T-Rex
Oct 31 2018 at 11:54am
Most of the differences highlighted in the comments were in place by the early 90’s. I drive a 1995 Ford Explorer. My brother drives a 2018 Ford Explorer. His MPG is slightly better. I’m sure his car is somewhat safer, although I do have ABS, dual airbags, etc. A case could be made that cars have progressed a lot in the last 50 years, but very little in the last 25.
Comments are closed.