I go with “It’s all computers now! Get off my lawn!” When your '76 Somethingorother isn’t running you can usually figure out whether fuel is making it to the cylinder, and if not why; and whether the plugs are sparking, and if not why. If your 2009 Ultrareliable isn’t running, it could just be the computer has decided not to let it run–maybe because a part is borked and it’s preventing additional damage, or maybe because the computer itself is borked.
As for this thread, I really wish Japan had figured out rust prevention in the 70s. They really turned out someinterestingrides back then that have rusted beyond restoration.
“Aerodynamics and energy conservation should produce some cars of interest in the future though they may not be aesthetically pleasing.”
Conversely, this is why American cars produced from the mid 1950s until the gas crisis/cost increases of 1973 had so much personality and will remain in favor of auto enthusiasts.
I actually miss mine; especially after it was gelded. (had the filler pipe repaired)
I would say the combination of unibody construction, thin metal, early anti-pollution gear, and changes in driving habits all have their place in the equation. My dad drove to work daily for several years and that added up to maybe 5k miles a year; for some of my friends they nearly do/did that every month going to and from work.
FWIW you do see some 70s cars at car shows and some early 80s as well as the usual ton of 50s. But very few 60-64 cars. Basically because the economy sucked and few people bought cars those years. And those who did drove them to death. So consider economics in the equation as well.
That could be true for some of the fancier models that end up in car shows, but not cars in general. I seem to recall the full size Chevys from one of those years had the highest single model-year production of any car in history. I suppose it could be indicitive of the poor economy that the Chevys were selling more those years, but they still certainly sold lots of cars. The early 60’s Darts/Volares were similarly sold in enormous numbers and, I dunno about car shows, but I still see some of those on the road.
My experience with '60’s Chevrolets was that they were very reliable. My Dad had several models, mostly sedans, with the “stove bolt” straigh 6 cylinder engines. All ran well for over 100,000 miles, and as far as rst goes, they stayed rust free for 5 years.
Plus, tuning them up was simple-it was a one hour job to replace spark plugs, points, wires, and oil change (lots of room in the engine compartments).
Actually fancy cars did OK (the rich usually find ways of staying rich) and the bottom end/lowest priced did not-quite-OK-but-not-a-disaster. Basically because people who just HAD TO HAVE a car bought “under” their usual wants. But the 59-64 economy as much as anything killed some existing brands as well as some “upstart” brands like the Edsel.
(There is a book called The Edsel Affair which is actually a good read on how not to succeed in business while trying really hard.)
…there’s a guy on the other side of town who had two-quietly rusting away in his backyard. He sold one last year-now the other (lonely) Edsel sits there, decaying.
I wonder if this guy thinks he has a fortune sitting there? I would guess that restoring such a heap would cost a fortune-and that such an “investment” would have no return.
I’m sure that there is an Edsel club somewhere, but it must be a small (and dwindling) group.
Edsels are actually quite collectible. In fact, they get a bad rap. They weren’t lemons; they were good solid cars. It’s true that they were not well-received by the public, but that was more because they weren’t what the public was expecting. When Ford announced they had a new model coming out they told consumers it would be an entirely new type of car. People were expecting maybe an innovative economy car to compete with the then-surging Volkswagen Beetle. When the Edsel turned out to be just another big bruiser of a car, the public rejected it.
Quote:
One popular misconception is that the Edsel was an engineering failure, or a lemon, even though it shared the basic technology and overall reliability of the concurrent Mercury and Ford models that were built in the same factories. The Edsel is most famous for being a marketing disaster.
I differ with this…the Edsel had some pretty stupid “innovations’-one was the 'rotating drum” speedometer-which drivers never liked. Another was the pushbotton-activated automatic transmission-which had the buttons on the center of the steering column-this “innovation” caused constant problems, and short circuits. There was even the story of the RC priest-who was given a new Edsel…on the drive home from the dealer, the transmission control wires shorted out, and the dashboard caught fire-the priest pulled over and fled-the car burned.
Not exactly an endorsement of reliability!
Plus, Ford seemed to want to make the car as ugly as possible-they stuck chrome all over it, and name badges everywhere. As one wag put it, the edsel looked “like an Oldsmobiloe pushing a toilet seat”.
In defense of the Edsel, there are a couple of things to consider. one is the face that there was a recession during '58 that took its toll on all automakers, not just Ford. Also, the Big 3 in general produced some seriously ugly cars in '58. Enormous chrome plated flanks, super-busy front end designs… Buick, Pontiac, Lincoln all produced some real turds. The Edsel was pretty much running in that pack.
Come '61, people like Elwood Engel made the transition to a more graceful execution in cars like the Continental and later with Chrysler. Even Buick decided less is more in the '61 models.
People used to think their car was fast and powerful because it could “burn rubber”. They forget that the tires were bias ply that may last 20K miles. The suspensions were horrible, there was no traction control and had drum brakes. They were having fun making smoke and wearing out their tires while going nowhere.
Even the low end cars today have radial tires, solid suspensions, traction control and disk brakes. Even if you could get a 70’s muscle car to beat your mom’s Subaru in a drag race you would have to brake before making any turn or the old horse would go out of control and end up in the dirt.
Also, in the '70 the body fits of the Detroit cars were at their worst. A hood might be 1/4 to a 1/2 inch off from the fender line. The gap between the trunk lid and the fenders could be very inconsistent, 1/8 inch at the window and 3/8 inch near the bumper. Why restore something that was inherently poorly engineered and built?
Rust ate up these those things before anyone could think of restoring them. It got so that body shops would not even work on rust spots because it was futile.
To engage in hyperbole, it’s like asking why there isn’t any milk from the '70’s.
I had a similar experience in the late 80’s with driving a '74 El Dorado Convertible with that same engine. That thing was like driving a supertanker in the ocean…
Another similar experience - my dad had an '85 Continental. You’d hit the gas on it and it would SOUND like you were really moving, but it was only going about 25-35.
I just said it was hideous, not that it was most hideous. But if you ever get to see a green one and check out the matching green vinyl on the roof you’ll have nightmares for weeks. Here is a brown one with tan roof vinyl http://m880.photobucket.com/albumview/albums/DrCarson805/CadillacCastilian1976/CanonSD780is150.jpg.html. And it’s not a landau roof in the sense I am familiar with. Just a normal roof with a couple big squares of matching vinyl glued on top.
