I like a somewhat no-frills car. No power windows, standard key ignition*, etc. While I prefer manual transmission, Mrs FtG can no longer use one so it’s automatic from here on.
My old 1987 Mazda 323 was a good example of this. Drove it ~25 years, ~230000 miles on it. When the engine just plain broke down, sold it for scrap.
My current car is a '99 Corolla, basic model. So it’s just a baby.
Resale value? Forget it. This is the way to go for people like me.
Even if you drive it for “only” 10 years, the extra cost of the frills won’t be made up for at resale time. Plus you avoid headaches. E.g., I’ve had to replace a power window motor twice on Mrs FtG’s intermediate model Corolla. Grrrr.
Keeping a car for 20+ years means doing a lot of DIY maintenance and all these powered gadgets just increase the hassles.
Re: Opening manual windows while driving. On my 323 I could reach the passenger side crank easily and I kept the rear pop-out windows unlatched so I could reach over and push out the passenger side one while driving. (The driver side one required being stopped.)
If you hang out at places like SlashDot you’ll often see stories about how incredibly easy it is to crack those remote ignition systems. Get a kit for cheap from China and go into the stolen car biz. Don’t even have to have low end skills like using a slimjim and hot-wiring.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary reason motorcycles are allowed in the carpool lane is the fact that they are narrow (so you can put two of them side by side) and the secondary reason is that they tend to use less fuel than most cars. The average motorcycle gets 56 mpg. The Polaris Slingshot is 6 ft 6 in wide – wider than a Corvette, and only gets 37 mpg. So why would a Polaris Slingshot deserve the privilege of riding in the carpool lane?
It’s because any vehicle with fewer than four wheels is considered a motorcycle in the U.S. If you want to consider Slingshots and similar vehicles as exploiting loopholes, you may be right. As far as I know, they also are only required to meet motorcycle safety requirements, so they are cheaper to make.
The other reason is that most motorcycles are single-person vehicles. Yes, you can ride on the back of one, but there’s really only one first-class seat. Similarly, 2-seater vehicles can drive in 3-or-more carpool lanes with just two passengers.
The Polaris thingy appears to have two real seats, so that probably shouldn’t apply.
You aren’t supposed to ride side by side on motorcycles. That’s dangerous.
The reason such vehicles are allowed to use the carpool lane is because the carpool lane is often offered as a carrot to entice people to drive the ‘right’ kind of vehicle. So for example many places allow electric and hybrid cars to use the carpool lane, simply to encourage people to buy more electric and hybrid cars. Carpool lanes were invented to ease congestion and reduce the number of cars on the road, but that rapidly got perverted when politicians saw how useful they could be for nudging people around.
Yes, I know that carpool lanes were invented to ease congestion, encouraging two people to share one car instead of taking two cars, because that would save space and save gasoline. And then the motorcycle people said “Hey what about us? We save space and we save gas too.” so the lawmakers said Okay motorcycles can use the carpool lane because they save space and they save gas. That’s the reason why motorcycles are allowed in the carpool lane. And that reasondoes not apply the Polaris Slingshot because it does not save space and it does not save gas.* So if the Slingshot is reclassified as an “autocycle” and autocycles don’t get special treatment in the carpool lane, then justice will have been done because the Slingshot doesn’t deserve to be in the carpool lane.
*The Polaris Slingshot is wider than my wife’s car and it gets worse fuel economy than my wife’s car, but her car isn’t allowed in the carpool lane.
Another thing that slows down the old muscle cars is that their engines just weren’t all that powerful compared to modern ones. Those old Gross horsepower ratings make them look stronger than they really were. Using the more realistic net hp, only a few of the hotter big blocks of the 60’s could make 300+ hp. A modern Camaro or Mustang can match that with a 6 cylinder. Sad but true.
True, but 37 isn’t good enough to deserve an honorary spot in the carpool lane. Motorcycles average 56 MPG. Most EVs get about 100 MPGe. Surely you aren’t suggesting we start letting all the vehicles that get 37 MPG or better into the carpool lane. I just did a search on the EPA website for all vehicles sold in the US in the last ten years that get at least 35 MPG (it wouldn’t let me search 37, only multiples of 5) and the search yielded 1,283 hits out of a possible 12,143. So, roughly 10% of cars would qualify.
Want a really basic car that is easy to repair, has a good power to weight ratio, small, easy to upgrade and can give domestic muscle cars a run for their money? Get a Chevy Cavalier Z24 (1st or third generation). Heavy in the front, light in the back and can slide/drift easily. 26MPG Hwy.
Yes, I said a Cavalier. So many people talk crap about them without driving them. Try driving one with a turbo and you’ll shit your pants. It’s a nice combination of things, fast but not too fast, great acceleration, sounds great, has a fantastic and reliable transmission. Here’s a regular 2003 Chevy Cavalier versus a regular 2003 Ford Mustang.
Something very impressive… it makes me wonder why people go out of their way to buy expensive sports cars… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pJCay-rESc This is a cavalier with a supercharger beating a Corvette.
It’s no wonder I picked up one of them for a daily driver.
True, but on the other hand a few engines were rated below their actua power level for insurance reasons. But there were small blocks around that could make some decent power. The 327 in my car came out of an old '66 Vette, where it was rated at 365hp or 375 with fuel injection. Net, it was probably 330-340 Hp or so before we worked on it.
But there’s no doubt we are currently living in a golden age of performance vehicles. Even lowly Mustangs and Camaros are track monsters now, and not just ‘pony cars’. Who thought that in 2018 we’d have a Mustang with a 526hp flat plane crank engine and independent rear suspension that can smoke BMW’s on a track? Or that there would be 400-750 Ho engines available in a wide variety of vehicles?
I recall looking at a Dodge Neon SRT-4 back when they came out, and was surprised to see that it had power windows for the front doors and manual cranks for the back. Perhaps other cars came with both at one time, but I certainly can’t remember any.
No, I’m not suggesting that. Also, your search said they accounted for 10% of models available. That does not mean they comprise 10% of the vehicles on the road. Those cars simply don’t sell well compared to gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.
A Vette with the 327 Fuelie was one of the quickest small block cars of the 1960s. It weighed 3150 pounds, and would go through the 1/4 mile traps at 99 mph. It takes 250 horsepower at the crank to do that.