My 99 Miata did not come with power steering; I’m sure it’s standard now, but I’m not sure when that happened. I know Civics and other small cars from around the same era could be had with a manual rack. I think the Aveo and the previous generation Versa were the last holdouts, but effective electric power steering systems have reduced costs so much that even super cheap cars can slap 'em on.
I believe the Smart ForTwo doesn’t have power steering. The Lotus Elise cannot be had with a powered rack, as far as I know. If you look in the “low volume sports cars” category there may be others. If you look outside the US I’m sure there are plenty of cars being made that don’t have them either.
Vent windows (the only thing I mourn about the end of ubiquitous smoking)
The 2-gallon emergency gas tank you could activate by flipping a switch on the floor
High performance cars (sigh)
Running boards (great if you parked over a puddle and wanted to jump over it and save your shoes from getting wet)
Late '60s styling (sigh)
That was gonna be my question. A Nissan Murano family wagon can out accelerate, out top speed, out brake, and out corner a typical late 60s muscle car.
While the kids are watching the onboard dvd player and all 26 cup holders have Big Gulps. And the air conditioner is blasting. And Mom is yakking on the handsfree phone.
Late 60s muscle cars were only awesome compared to late 50s muscle cars.
I grew up with 'em and still have a soft spot for 'em in my heart. But the soft spot isn’t in my head. By modern standards they suck pond scum in every measure of merit.
no kidding. I have a 2012 Mustang GT. It has a 302 c.i. engine which is rated at 412 net horsepower, and it will make that 412 net horsepower all day, every day, and be more or less a purring kitten driving around town. in the '60s and '70s, if you got a 302 c.i. engine up to 400+ hp, it wouldn’t idle, and would be a shaking, stumbling, undriveable mess around town.
hell, the 1969-70 Boss 302 was rated at 290 (gross) hp, and it was a barely driveable mess:
that lopey, uneven idle means the engine was struggling to just stay running at idle. as far as “gross” horsepower is concerned, you can pretty much ignore any “gross” ratings because they’re completely divorced from the real world.
Huh? There are still hundreds of drive-ins in the U.S., many of them near large population centers. I’m out in the sticks and live sixty miles from the nearest one, but we went to it last year when visiting friends. Great way to go to a movie when you have little kids without the expense and hassle of getting a babysitter.
Quote:
“cars that all look the same”
Why not make replicas of popular 1960s cars-with modern running gear? The New Camaro seems to have been successful.
Although, Ford’s remake of the classic T-Bird kinda flopped.
The current aerodynmic (melted jellybean) look is getting kind of dated-we are due for a change.
look, styling follows trends. if you’re not interested in a particular era of cars, then all cars of that era look alike. I’m sure my grandfather could have discerned the difference between all of these cars:
But I can’t. Apart from the universally-recognized '57 Chevy and '59 Cadillac, without seeing the nameplate I couldn’t tell you which finned '50s monstrosity is a Cadillac, Pontiac, Ford, or whatever.
not gonna happen. fuel economy regulations will see to that. Aero is huge.
Next time you see a car from the 50’s - a 2-ton slab of iron which required at least 200hp to just move - look at the steering wheel - it is huge.
If you want to turn the front wheels with a cute little steering wheel either have shoulders like a MLB player or get a power steering unit.
Yes, the 60’s “Muscle Cars” were largely crap - legend had it that one of them required hoisting the engine to replace a spark plug (which had to be replaced every 3000 miles), but that was probably a (slight) exaggeration.
But: there was something about a good, throaty, gas-guzzling V-8. I understand the current Mustang has a recording it plays to imitate the sound an earlier Mustang made honestly.
'Taint the same…
So how hard could it be to give my car the sound of a '51 Chevy three-speed six, shifting up and down, depending on the car’s speed, along with the sound of the column shifter?
Wait! I gotta think big!
I remember 15 years ago walking across a muffler shop’s parking lot at a car-repair strip mall and hearing a big Ford V8 starting. Rumble rumble. I turned around and saw an Edsel about to back out of the shop. It was glorious.
With all the sounds of yesteryears’ cars, I foresee big money to be made. rubs hands together as dollar signs appear in eyes and an antique cash register goes ka-ching
the current Mustang GT (and every Mustang GT since 2010) has a “sound induction tube” which is a pipe fitted from the intake duct to the firewall. it has a tuned chamber and diaphragm to act as a seal and a low-pass filter. since the intake valve"s open with the same pattern as the exhaust valves, you hear it as that signature “throaty” V8 sound. I’ve had two Mustangs, and it’s quite convincing. well, it was until I put a new exhaust system on, so the tube wasn’t really needed.
the new Ecoboost Mustang has electronic Engine Sound Enhancement, which is not a “recording of earlier Mustangs.” it uses the same hardware other vehicles use for Active Noise Cancellation, a few microphones in the cabin and a DSP in the radio. All it can do is selectively reduce or enhance the engine’s fundamental sound. It does not and cannot try to make the four cylinder Ecoboost sound like a V8, all it does is try to make a four cylinder sound less shitty.
it’d be pretty damn hard. none of these systems can make one type of engine sound like another type. An engine’s characteristic sound is due to its cylinder layout and firing pattern/interval. A crossplane 90 degree V8 will always sound like a crossplane 90 degree V8. A 60 degree V6 will always sound like a 60 degree V6. All these electronic systems do is try to “shape” the engine sound the driver hears to make it a bit more pleasing; basically using the speakers to try to suppress some of the nastier bits of the engine’s sound.
Don’t they now play a completely arbitrary sound for electric cars so deaf (and maybe texting/oblivious) people will hear them? And what is the deal with motorcyles? It is so irritating that when one comes through the neighborhood, everyone has to stop talking and wait for it to pass. At that small size, it should be quieter than a car! Obnoxious.
That’s pretty funny, but do you really think cars in the '70s were as similar as that (or as they are now)? It could be though that as you noted, aero is so important that it limits the ability to play much with styling; but how do we explain an oddity like the PT Cruiser?
they’re modified. the Harley guys are probably running straight pipes (no mufflers,) and the obnoxious sportbike squids have a high-flow exhaust and they’re screaming around at 10,000 rpm.
sure. go look at a 1976 Chevy Malibu, a 1977 Ford LTD II, and a 1978 Chrysler Cordoba.
the PT Cruiser kicked off the “retro” trend for specialty cars in 2001, it became a joke by the time it was canceled in 2010 because it looked almost exactly the same 10 years later. Plus, for its size the PT Cruiser was well known for poor fuel economy.
The notion that all cars look the same now is pretty laughable. Consider the Jeep Renegade, VW New Beetle, BMW i8, Fiat 500, Audi RS7, Dodge Challenger, Honda CR-Z, Mazda MX-5, Nissan Juke, Ford Flex, Jaguar F-Type, Kia Soul…
There’s loads of style out there if you’re willing to stay away from standard 4-door 3 box rental fodder or crappy compact SUVs. The problem is confirmation bias – people remember the 69 Mach 1 fastback but forget about the millions of nondescript 4 door Falcons that were sold, used up, and then crushed.
Okay, but what about (from those same years) a Ford Maverick, AMC Pacer, Chevy El Camino, Datsun 280Z, Mazda RX3, Honda Civic, and Chevy Monte Carlo? All pretty different from each other.
Still, **steronz **makes a good point: there are more variations in style now than it sometimes seems.
ETA: Oops, I meant *blind *people, not deaf people. My bad!
